Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer


Pages : [1] 2

Bren
08-11-2012, 16:31
This is not really a political issue, or an Army issue - more of a social issue thing I guess, so I'm going to try GNG as a forum for it.

Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/army-general-is-militarys-first-openly-gay-flag-officer/?hpt=hp_t3)

The interesting thing isn't that they made her a general and let her "wife" pin on her stars - that would be in keeping with Army policy . . . if you could make general in your first year.

The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years. Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.

So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?

If she was straight and had a DUI as a captain, she probably wouldn't even be in the Army right now.

Kilrain
08-11-2012, 16:36
Being that she's a gay flag officer, does her car have little rainbow flags on the front fenders when she's driven around?

:dunno:

Ummagumma
08-11-2012, 16:36
This is not really a political issue, or an Army issue - more of a social issue thing I guess, so I'm going to try GNG as a forum for it.

Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/army-general-is-militarys-first-openly-gay-flag-officer/?hpt=hp_t3)

The interesting thing isn't that they made her a general and let her "wife" pin on her stars - that would be in keeping with Army policy . . . if you could make general in your first year.

The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years. Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.

So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?

If she was straight and had a DUI as a captain, she probably wouldn't even be in the Army right now.

It's not like she's lied about her qualifications or having a prior criminal record. She lied under a policy of discrimination that 40 years from now would appear no different than "No colored people" policies do now. She shouldn't have been put in this situation in the first place.

Caver 60
08-11-2012, 17:33
I know of at least three full bull Colonels who received UCMJ punishment for adultery. One case happened within the last year or so. I don't see any reason she should be given an exemption for her violations. I'm on Bren's side on this one.

Restless28
08-11-2012, 18:25
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?

bunk22
08-11-2012, 18:26
Yet she looks so hetero! Whew...

kiole
08-11-2012, 18:29
How would you feel if she was Jewish and there was a policy against Jews serving? Then years later the discriminative policy was eliminated. Would you think her hiding her religion was justified?

faawrenchbndr
08-11-2012, 18:30
Well,.....she looks like a dude, guess she is on top?

Ummagumma
08-11-2012, 18:49
I know of at least three full bull Colonels who received UCMJ punishment for adultery. One case happened within the last year or so. I don't see any reason she should be given an exemption for her violations. I'm on Bren's side on this one.

What's the UCMJ definition of adultery ? Seriously, I've got no idea. Were they married and fooling around ? Or were they unmarried and had a girlfriend ?

Are all UCMJ personnel prohibited by having a relationship with other UCMJ personnel, even if neither is married ?

fireguy129
08-11-2012, 18:53
Anyone surprised? Really??

davew83
08-11-2012, 18:59
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?

Probably would worry more about the work they do than who they sleep with.

SPIN2010
08-11-2012, 19:01
Right on the money, Bren.

Just more proof we are in the time of what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right.

Fact: A lying CIC or a lying general, whats the difference? No agency is enforcing the law on criminals and the american people have no power over their leaders to do so anymore.

Big Bird
08-11-2012, 19:08
The real question is was she promoted because of her sexuality or in spite of it?

Regardless...promotion party following the ceremony to be held at the "Don't ask don't tell club."

KalashniKEV
08-11-2012, 19:16
The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years.

WOW... just wow... :wow:

Did you equate concealing her sexuality prior to DADT to getting tanked and taking the party on the road?

INTERESTING indeed... (your comment)

Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.

Have you not violated Article 125? Because I did routinely...

I guess it's a good thing I'll never be a General.



So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?

If you were a runaway slave, your record was clean after the Emancipation.

If you were a top performer in service to Nation, serving under a backward policy that was later reversed, your record is similarly clean whether you're a General officer or an E-4 for life.

I'm really surprised by your shameful comment. You should slap the **** out of yourself and edit the OP, IMO. :shocked:

ChuteTheMall
08-11-2012, 19:26
Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer

I see you spelled flag correctly.

:aodnsb:

And yeah, if she lied to get her security clearance, she needs to be prosecuted. It's a matter of national security, not a sex club.

:pjmn:

zoyter2
08-11-2012, 19:27
I think people are avoiding the REAL issue and dodging what NEEDS TO BE SAID........................



















Congratulations on your promotion and thank you for your service General Smith. :patriot:

KalashniKEV
08-11-2012, 19:40
Congratulations on your promotion and thank you for your service General Smith. :patriot:

x1000

This is a historic moment in the history of the United States Army and should be celebrated, but really, congratulations to BG Smith!!

The age of Radical Christian Moralism is over in this country. Our culture has progressed.

No longer do we have THE FIRST AMERICAN FEMALE ASTRONAUT living in shame of her sexuality, and in secret. No longer do we have General Officers living lives of service- contrary to the policies of their organizations.

We can celebrate the WHOLE HERO now... and that's a very good thing!

:salute:

bigleaf
08-11-2012, 19:41
It seems that her work over her career was exceptional to the point that she was promoted again, and again, and again until she was among the highest leaders in our Army.

You've got to remember... In response to a set of discriminatory, unjust and un-American regulations against a large number of their fellow soldiers, the Armed Forces has ignored sexual orientation for decades. They didn't much talk about it. Soldiers did their jobs. Soldiers got promoted according to how well they did their jobs. They even got Congress and Pres. Clinton to codify it with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", while those unjust regs were heading out the door for good.

Here's the test for government recognition of marriage or equal treatment under the law, or any right of any American: Is this a right of a citizen? Is she a citizen? If yes, and yes, then yes.

Congratulations to General Smith, and to our Army for truly reflecting our citizenry.

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 19:46
This is not really a political issue, or an Army issue - more of a social issue thing I guess, so I'm going to try GNG as a forum for it.

Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/army-general-is-militarys-first-openly-gay-flag-officer/?hpt=hp_t3)

The interesting thing isn't that they made her a general and let her "wife" pin on her stars - that would be in keeping with Army policy . . . if you could make general in your first year.

The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years. Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.

So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?

If she was straight and had a DUI as a captain, she probably wouldn't even be in the Army right now.

I agree 100%

Having served on active duty in the Reserve Personnel Center, I've seen it time and time again.

For example: back then the Officer regulations stated that if you fail certain career courses you must be discharged. I've seen a female officer fail twice and nothing happened to her. On top of that, I was threatened with disciplinary action of I looked into it further.

boby
08-11-2012, 19:52
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?

Who cares what a bunch of dead guys think?

camelotkid
08-11-2012, 20:01
I think people are avoiding the REAL issue and dodging what NEEDS TO BE SAID........................



















Congratulations on your promotion and thank you for your service General Smith. :patriot:
cheers to that :cheers:

cowboywannabe
08-11-2012, 20:04
maybe she didnt turn gay until after it was allowed in the military....

NIB
08-11-2012, 20:41
I see you spelled flag correctly.

:aodnsb:

And yeah, if she lied to get her security clearance, she needs to be prosecuted. It's a matter of national security, not a sex club.

:pjmn:

And how is her sexuality status a threat to National Security? Because she lied? I lost track of how many times I lied or my fellow soldiers lied to cover up for one of our own when they were underage drinking or did something stupid.

Breaking News: Gays have been serving in the military for longer than we've been alive.

Glock13
08-11-2012, 20:41
This is not really a political issue, or an Army issue - more of a social issue thing I guess, so I'm going to try GNG as a forum for it.

Army general is military's first openly gay flag officer (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/army-general-is-militarys-first-openly-gay-flag-officer/?hpt=hp_t3)

The interesting thing isn't that they made her a general and let her "wife" pin on her stars - that would be in keeping with Army policy . . . if you could make general in your first year.

The interesting part is, she has been in the Army for 26 years. More than 19 years ago, she had to state in writing that she was not a homosexual in order to join and I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years. Even during Don't Ask Don't Tell, she was in violation for actually having a girlfriend/wife/whatever she calls her. DADT only stopped them from asking, it remained a UCMJ violation to have sex with a person of the same sex.

So that decided to ignore violations o fthe past - but does that wipe out an entire career of lying to the Army and violating regulations, to make her a general?

If she was straight and had a DUI as a captain, she probably wouldn't even be in the Army right now.

Just get over it man. It's time to move on from this issue.

ray9898
08-11-2012, 20:45
ehhh....big deal. Thanks for your service General.

arclight610
08-11-2012, 20:47
One can't pick and choose which policies to abide by and which to not. The whole premise of the military is following lawful orders and policies set forth by those in charge. She should not have been promoted, or even still be in the Army. However, she did get promoted and is still in. That is the direction the military is going, compromise.

lunarspeak
08-11-2012, 20:51
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?

im going to bet atleast one or more of them was gay too so im thinking they would have said "you go girlfriend"

there are alot of gays in the armed forces.there was gay sex in the trenches of ww1 there was gay sex on the sands of normandy there was gay sex in the jungles of vietnam and gay sex in the moutains of afgahastan..thre is no way to get rid of it.

maybe instead of people worrying about gays in the millitary they should worry about the drug addicts or gang members that have beeen documented going in to learn to be better and tougher on the streets...how about the high percentage of domestic violence..nope the OP isnt worried about that.

ChuteTheMall
08-11-2012, 20:52
maybe she didnt turn gay until after it was allowed in the military....

If so, than it's not some mysterious genetic condition instead of a behavior choice.

If not, then she lied to obtain a security clearance.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2nhkh0n.jpg

:whistling:

OctoberRust
08-11-2012, 20:53
Who cares what a bunch of dead guys think?


Half his posts are troll posts, don't mind him.

Restless28
08-11-2012, 20:58
Half his posts are troll posts, don't mind him.

I think I have told you once before. If you have a beef with me, PM me. Don't be a punk and do it on the forum, but, if you do, I understand, as that's your style.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 21:04
what the **** does it matter if shes gay or not? seriously. Does being gay inhibit ones ability to fire a weapon? To defend their country? To honor their Oath? To command troops or to DIE in battle? NO......I Am a Former Marine and i support ANY soldier who has given 26 years of their life to this country no matter what sexual preference they have.

Support our damn troops! Regardless of their skin color, religion, sexual preference or Political beliefs.............seriously. If you dont support gay marriage. COOL. But dont insult a Army General because she likes women. Thats severely un-Patriotic and out right un-American.

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 21:11
. Thats severely un-Patriotic and out right un-American.

I beg to differ

stevelyn
08-11-2012, 21:14
Congratulations to the General on earning her star. :salute:

The govt lies about weed. I lied about weed use. It didn't affect national security while I had my clearance.

If so, than it's not some mysterious genetic condition instead of a behavior choice.

If not, then she lied to obtain a security clearance.



http://i47.tinypic.com/2nhkh0n.jpg

:whistling:


Hey............ Isn't that the unit patch for the 69th Div?:dunno:



The age of Radical Christian Moralism is over in this country. Our culture has progressed.


I certainly hope so.

Peace Warrior
08-11-2012, 21:15
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

:gayfight: :aodnsb:

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 21:17
I beg to differ

Really? So you believe that insulting a solder. who has given most of their life to protecting your behind.......deserves to be judged because of their choice in partner?

What happened to "where all men are created equal". ? I dont think that saying just applies to MEN.

After 9-11.........do you have any idea how many gay and lesbian firefighters charged into the towers , some who lost their lives.......

Do you know how many Cops, Paramedics, Doctors.........are gay or lesbian?

I understand religious views on Marriage. Thats your right as an American. However what gives you the right to judge a human being who lives to defend you?

Im willing to bet all my chickens that if we had another terror attack......you wouldnt give two craps who was saving your butt..........gay....lesbian..........jewish..........mexican......wouldnt matter.

But its sure easy to sit at a computer and Insult our troops isnt it. Easy to judge people from afar. That is cowardice. Im sure that this woman...........doesnt have that much in her. Do you?

Restless28
08-11-2012, 21:21
im going to bet atleast one or more of them was gay too so im thinking they would have said "you go girlfriend"

there are alot of gays in the armed forces.there was gay sex in the trenches of ww1 there was gay sex on the sands of normandy there was gay sex in the jungles of vietnam and gay sex in the moutains of afgahastan..thre is no way to get rid of it.

maybe instead of people worrying about gays in the millitary they should worry about the drug addicts or gang members that have beeen documented going in to learn to be better and tougher on the streets...how about the high percentage of domestic violence..nope the OP isnt worried about that.

Where is the documented evidence of all of that gay sex you claim?

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 21:23
But its sure easy to sit at a computer and Insult our troops isnt it. Easy to judge people from afar. That is cowardice. Im sure that this woman...........doesnt have that much in her. Do you?

So, any opinion expressed on this forum which goes against yours is 'cowardice'?

How is it that I insulted her?

You sound awfully shrill.

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 21:24
Congratulations to the General on earning her star. :salute:

The govt lies about weed. I lied about weed use. It didn't affect national security while I had my clearance.




Hey............ Isn't that the unit patch for the 69th Div?

:dunno:


I certainly hope so.



Aren't you a cop? Did you lie on your application?

Restless28
08-11-2012, 21:24
x1000

This is a historic moment in the history of the United States Army and should be celebrated, but really, congratulations to BG Smith!!

The age of Radical Christian Moralism is over in this country. Our culture has progressed.

No longer do we have THE FIRST AMERICAN FEMALE ASTRONAUT living in shame of her sexuality, and in secret. No longer do we have General Officers living lives of service- contrary to the policies of their organizations.

We can celebrate the WHOLE HERO now... and that's a very good thing!

:salute:

What is Radical Christian Moralism?

arclight610
08-11-2012, 21:28
Really? So you believe that insulting a solder. who has given most of their life to protecting your behind.......deserves to be judged because of their choice in partner?

What happened to "where all men are created equal". ? I dont think that saying just applies to MEN.

After 9-11.........do you have any idea how many gay and lesbian firefighters charged into the towers , some who lost their lives.......

Do you know how many Cops, Paramedics, Doctors.........are gay or lesbian?

I understand religious views on Marriage. Thats your right as an American. However what gives you the right to judge a human being who lives to defend you?

Im willing to bet all my chickens that if we had another terror attack......you wouldnt give two craps who was saving your butt..........gay....lesbian..........jewish..........mexican......wouldnt matter.

But its sure easy to sit at a computer and Insult our troops isnt it. Easy to judge people from afar. That is cowardice. Im sure that this woman...........doesnt have that much in her. Do you?

It's not that fact she is homosexual that is at issue. It is the fact that she was homosexual when in fact declaring that she was not for the last 25+ years and violating established policy.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 21:30
So, any opinion expressed on this forum which goes against yours is 'cowardice'?

How is it that I insulted her?

You sound awfully shrill.

When it comes to hatred towards other people for living their own lives. Your right I am Shrill. My sister is a lesbian. Shes also a goddman fine Marine. She took a bullet in COMBAT in Iraq........she wasnt a combat soldier, she drove a TSB truck. But she did a whole lot more for the USA than most of the gay bashers out there.

You insulted her and every other gay/lesbian in the armed forces by saying that insulting this General was not Un-American. Which it is. America is about freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And to State that bashing people who are doing exactly that...goes against everything our country stands for.

I am a Marine. I've served my time, so have THOUSANDS of gay/lesbian and Bisexual soldiers. I served elbow to elbow with them. Infact my Gunny was gay, Dont ask dont tell, But we all knew and there's no one else i would rather drop into a hornets nest with other than him.

Whether they enjoy the company of men or women....they are still damn fine soldiers. As someone who has been in the **** with them. I know this to be a truth, and no book, no hatred and no opinion will ever change that truth.

ChuteTheMall
08-11-2012, 21:31
http://i48.tinypic.com/actqms.jpg

:pjmn:

HollowHead
08-11-2012, 21:34
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?

Are they still in command positions? HH

arclight610
08-11-2012, 21:35
When it comes to hatred towards other people for living their own lives. Your right I am Shrill. My sister is a lesbian. Shes also a goddman fine Marine. She took a bullet in COMBAT in Iraq........she wasnt a combat soldier, she drove a TSB truck. But she did a whole lot more for the USA than most of the gay bashers out there.

You insulted her and every other gay/lesbian in the armed forces by saying that insulting this General was not Un-American. Which it is. America is about freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And to State that bashing people who are doing exactly that...goes against everything our country stands for.

I am a Marine. I've served my time, so have THOUSANDS of gay/lesbian and Bisexual soldiers. I served elbow to elbow with them. Infact my Gunny was gay, Dont ask dont tell, But we all knew and there's no one else i would rather drop into a hornets nest with other than him.

Whether they enjoy the company of men or women....they are still damn fine soldiers. As someone who has been in the **** with them. I know this to be a truth, and no book, no hatred and no opinion will ever change that truth.

Ah, now I see. It's a personal issue.

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 21:36
When it comes to hatred towards other people for living their own lives. Your right I am Shrill. My sister is a lesbian. Shes also a goddman fine Marine. She took a bullet in COMBAT in Iraq........she wasnt a combat soldier, she drove a TSB truck. But she did a whole lot more for the USA than most of the gay bashers out there.

You insulted her and every other gay/lesbian in the armed forces by saying that insulting this General was not Un-American. Which it is. America is about freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And to State that bashing people who are doing exactly that...goes against everything our country stands for.

I am a Marine. I've served my time, so have THOUSANDS of gay/lesbian and Bisexual soldiers. I served elbow to elbow with them. Infact my Gunny was gay, Dont ask dont tell, But we all knew and there's no one else i would rather drop into a hornets nest with other than him.

Whether they enjoy the company of men or women....they are still damn fine soldiers. As someone who has been in the **** with them. I know this to be a truth, and no book, no hatred and no opinion will ever change that truth.

First of all son, you need some better reading comprehension. I haven't insulted anyone. I haven't expressed 'hate' for anyone. I just happen to strongly disagree with the current policy and with a promotion which appears to be politically motivated. That's all.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 21:37
It's not that fact she is homosexual that is at issue. It is the fact that she was homosexual when in fact declaring that she was not for the last 25+ years and violating established policy.

Okay.....what if the application said

Are you black or hispanic?

Answering yes to either would be violation and you would not be allowed your god given right to serve your flag.

As it did before WW2..............would that be okay?

The Dont ask dont tell policy was pure bigotry. You should know that. It was BS from the start. I never agreed with it because i served with homosexual men and women and they were more committed to soldiering than anyone else.

Just like the Black units in WW2. everyone called them coons and monkeys and trash.....they fought harder than whites. We all know that. They proved they were worth admittance.

Gays and lesbians have proved that as well

She lied to protect her country. GOOD. She became a GENERAL.........you dont become a general if your not a damn good soldier. As far as i see it, if she had told the truth our country would have lost a great leader.

This is why the policy has been removed. Someones sexual orientation has nothing to do with being a soldier. It has to do with whiney wind bags who want to run someone elses life the way THEY see fit. ONLY God has the right to judge us. Noone else. And if being gay is a sin. he will deal with those people when their time comes, but i can guarantee, he will deal with those who sin by judgement just as harshly.

I say let those who serve our country be. They give us more than we give them.

ray9898
08-11-2012, 21:38
Ah, now I see. It's a personal issue.

Maybe you could learn something from it?

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 21:40
First of all son, you need some better reading comprehension. I haven't insulted anyone. I haven't expressed 'hate' for anyone. I just happen to strongly disagree with the current policy and with a promotion which appears to be politically motivated. That's all.

Why do you disagree.

Give one GOOD valid reason why gay or lesbian people should not be allowed to serve. Give one good reason why they are less human and less capable than you or I.

If you can honestly do that. With a Hardened response that gives Valid reason......then i may respect that answer.

But religion has nothing to do with the military. So dont try that one. It wont fly. I love my country. I was willing to die for it. As they are. to me......thats the only thing that matters.

NeverMore1701
08-11-2012, 21:43
Good for her. Congratulations Ma'am!

Restless28
08-11-2012, 21:43
Okay.....what if the application said

Are you black or hispanic?

Answering yes to either would be violation and you would not be allowed your god given right to serve your flag.

As it did before WW2..............would that be okay?

The Dont ask dont tell policy was pure bigotry. You should know that. It was BS from the start. I never agreed with it because i served with homosexual men and women and they were more committed to soldiering than anyone else.

Just like the Black units in WW2. everyone called them coons and monkeys and trash.....they fought harder than whites. We all know that. They proved they were worth admittance.

Gays and lesbians have proved that as well

She lied to protect her country. GOOD. She became a GENERAL.........you dont become a general if your not a damn good soldier. As far as i see it, if she had told the truth our country would have lost a great leader.

This is why the policy has been removed. Someones sexual orientation has nothing to do with being a soldier. It has to do with whiney wind bags who want to run someone elses life the way THEY see fit. ONLY God has the right to judge us. Noone else. And if being gay is a sin. he will deal with those people when their time comes, but i can guarantee, he will deal with those who sin by judgement just as harshly.

I say let those who serve our country be. They give us more than we give them.

What evidence do you have that blacks fought harder than whites, other than some movies that may have led you to believe this?

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 21:45
Why do you disagree.

Give one GOOD valid reason why gay or lesbian people should not be allowed to serve. Give one good reason why they are less human and less capable than you or I.

If you can honestly do that. With a Hardened response that gives Valid reason......then i may respect that answer.

But religion has nothing to do with the military. So dont try that one. It wont fly. I love my country. I was willing to die for it. As they are. to me......thats the only thing that matters.

Because of your personal involvement with Gays, nothing I present here will be to your satisfaction. My opinions on this matter, contrary to what you accuse me of, have nothing to do with religion, and all to do with my experiences in the Army.

stevelyn
08-11-2012, 21:46
Aren't you a cop? Did you lie on your application?

Yes I am. No I didn't. I disclosed everything including my misremembering weed use to Uncle Sam.

ScottieG59
08-11-2012, 21:47
Decades ago, I knew a few soldiers in my unit were gay or lesbian. It did not matter to me as a straight man. I deployed with all sorts and sexual orientation was always a non-issue. Back then, I was very conservative and it just did not matter.

At any given moment, soldiers find themselves outside UCMJ compliance. As with the civilian world, there are high and low priorities when it comes to prosecution.

The UCMJ also forbad normal sexual activities of heterosexuals.

I went through a divorce that took almost 4 years. When I was asked in my security clearance if I committed adultery, I said I had. It was after our separation and the start of the dragged out divorce. It did not matter in my clearance nor in my military service.

I have known all sorts if exemplary soldiers who did not line up with the outdated aspects of the UCMJ.

If one did not use some discretion in deciding what to prosecute, it would undermine moral. Even in uniform, the world is not simply black and white.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 21:51
Because of your personal involvement with Gays, nothing I present here will be to your satisfaction. My opinions on this matter, contrary to what you accuse me of, have nothing to do with religion, and all to do with my experiences in the Army.

Your right. They will not. Because Lcpl. Brian Wilmont took a few rounds, and gave his life so that i can sit here today and converse with you. Brian or "wilmer" as we lovingly called him. Was gay. His sexual orientation did not stop him from fighting, did not stop him from loving with everything he had. It did not stop him from dying for me and four other men. You may dislike gay soldiers. I respect them. And thats all there is to it.

Ummagumma
08-11-2012, 21:52
One can't pick and choose which policies to abide by and which to not. The whole premise of the military is following lawful orders and policies set forth by those in charge. She should not have been promoted, or even still be in the Army. However, she did get promoted and is still in. That is the direction the military is going, compromise.

Some policies should not have been in place. Some questions should have never been asked. And there are some military people who are universally praised today for not following the orders. I know it's an overused example, and not on the same level, but the orders to kill civilians given to Nazi Germany officers were lawful from Nazi point of view.

Look at it this way. Say a very light skinned, caucasian looking person who is still technically black lies about his race to get into military back when it discriminated against minorities. Say this person has a distinguished career. Would you still say the same words I highlighted in the quote above ?

For the record, I don't have any gay relatives, and never had any close gay friends. I simply object to any form of discrimination that's based purely on bias, whatever the nature of this bias may be. It's un-American.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 21:55
Some policies should not have been in place. Some questions should have never been asked. And there are some military people who are universally praised today for not following the orders. I know it's an overused example, and not on the same level, but the orders to kill civilians given to Nazi Germany officers were lawful from Nazi point of view.

Look at it this way. Say a very light skinned, caucasian looking person who is still technically black lies about his race to get into military back when it discriminated against minorities. Say this person has a distinguished career. Would you still say the same words I highlighted in the quote above ?

Exactly. The dont ask dont tell, disbarring people from joining. Is the same thing as not allowing black people into Diners set aside for whites.

The people who enforced these rules then look like complete racist morons today.

As will those who discriminate today, in 20 or so years.

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 22:11
Exactly. The dont ask dont tell, disbarring people from joining. Is the same thing as not allowing black people into Diners set aside for whites.

The people who enforced these rules then look like complete racist morons today.

As will those who discriminate today, in 20 or so years.

No it's not. Guys like you need to stop saying that.

Race is determined mostly by skin color. Sexual orientation is determined by behavior.

So please stop getting all high and mighty and start making invalid analogies.

Lampshade
08-11-2012, 22:13
It's not that fact she is homosexual that is at issue. It is the fact that she was homosexual when in fact declaring that she was not for the last 25+ years and violating established policy.

So she told a white lie to work around an immoral, discriminatory policy.

Boo freakin' hoo.

Lampshade
08-11-2012, 22:14
Sexual orientation is determined by behavior.

Lol, no.

If you are a man attracted to men, you are gay, whether or not you ever act on your attraction.

Your orientation is your orientation, regardless of your behavior.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 22:14
No it's not. Guys like you need to stop saying that.

Race is determined mostly by skin color. Sexual orientation is determined by behavior.

So please stop getting all high and mighty and start making valid analogies.

Ill end with this. Some day. Your life will be saved by someone who is gay. It may already have been. You will be in a situation where your screwed, badly. And the person that is your savior will be gay.....Before i joined the Military. I thought just like you did. I despised my sister because she was a lesbian. Then a gay man gave his life for mine. And i realized what you have not gotten yet. They are people. Just like you and me. And they deserve all the same happiness that we do.

Good day.

NeverMore1701
08-11-2012, 22:16
Ill end with this. Some day. Your life will be saved by someone who is gay. It may already have been. You will be in a situation where your screwed, badly. And the person that is your savior will be gay.....Before i joined the Military. I thought just like you did. I despised my sister because she was a lesbian. Then a gay man gave his life for mine. And i realized what you have not gotten yet. They are people. Just like you and me. And they deserve all the same happiness that we do.

Good day.

Your shallow anecdote holds no sway over the moral superiority so vocally espoused by his type.

Peace Warrior
08-11-2012, 22:19
http://i48.tinypic.com/actqms.jpg

:pjmn:
:rofl:

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 22:20
Your shallow anecdote holds no sway over the moral superiority so vocally espoused by his type.

Theres the question. Morals. Which one holds more. Morals that says being gay is wrong. Or Morals that say judging others is okay.

Mine say live and let be. If they love their country, and are willing to die for it. Let them die for it. Just like everyone else.

Peace Warrior
08-11-2012, 22:28
No it's not. Guys like you need to stop saying that.

Race is determined mostly by skin color. Sexual orientation is determined by behavior.

So please stop getting all high and mighty and... making [invalid] analogies.
Fixed it for ya!


I know you and I don't agree much, but please let the trolls lie as they'll never participate in an honest dialog.

Ummagumma
08-11-2012, 22:30
No it's not. Guys like you need to stop saying that.

Race is determined mostly by skin color. Sexual orientation is determined by behavior.

So please stop getting all high and mighty and start making valid analogies.

Wow, just wow. So does it mean a virgin has no sexual orientation ?

Your sexual orientation, whether you act on it or not, is hardcoded in you. Biologically. You are born that way. So it's not any different from race.

Let me ask you - if someone openly admitted he/she were gay (i.e. had preference for people of same sex) but could prove that they never engaged in sex, would they be allowed into service when gays couldn't serve ? If the answer is "no", then how is it based on behavior / is different from race discrimination ?

KalashniKEV
08-11-2012, 22:32
What is Radical Christian Moralism?

Biblical Sharia.






I have another confession to make to the GlockTalk inquisition- I kept my poncho liner and I never signed a DD 362.

:embarassed:

(No way was I giving up my woobie!)

I hope they don't change the status of my discharge!

certifiedfunds
08-11-2012, 22:32
Some of you guys would hit it if you could....

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 22:33
Fixed it for ya!


I know you and I don't agree much, but please let the trolls lie as they'll never participate in an honest dialog.

Agree. I'm done.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 22:34
Fixed it for ya!


I know you and I don't agree much, but please let the trolls lie as they'll never participate in an honest dialog.

Troll? I have an opinion that is different than yours and that makes me a troll? Bit childish dont you think.

I may not have Huge words, i may not use anecdotes or coin cool analogies. I may just be a Stupid Jarhead. I dont really care.

What i do have is i sleep peacefully at night. Knowing that my hands are clean of hatred, ignorance and judgement.

For me........thats good enough.

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 22:35
Biblical Sharia.






I have another confession to make to the GlockTalk inquisition- I kept my poncho liner and I never signed a DD 362.

:embarassed:

(No way was I giving up my woobie!)

I hope they don't change the status of my discharge!

You WHAT? Isn't there any decency left in the world?

:rofl:

Did you make a jacket out of the poncho liner?

lunarspeak
08-11-2012, 22:37
Where is the documented evidence of all of that gay sex you claim?

its common knowledge..just like its common knowledge about all the straight sex..guess wha alot of the soldiers even masterbate...

my wife comes from a family of marines who were deployed to iraq , one BIL went twice and one BIL went once but he now works outside of iraq for a company that fixes airplans.

so ive heard the stories of soldiers getting caught doing it in hummers' in stykers...if you wanted coke it was all around..
my BIL even admitted that he used the services of a female soldier, one of many who are prostitutes...theres even males that do it too..

soldiers are still people and they have vices.....do you have this picture in your head where after a long day of patrol they sit down and have fries and a coke ,say their prayers and hit the sack...some lift weights ,some play basketball,some meet up with thier girlfriends....normal stuff

KalashniKEV
08-11-2012, 22:38
I despised my sister because she was a lesbian. Then a gay man gave his life for mine.

According to the GlockTalk Klan, he's in hell now... and your sister will join him.

:wavey:

I have a gay friend who ran route clearance for a few years and has two purple hearts and two bronze stars.

I guess he's not fit to serve either?

:dunno:

Lampshade
08-11-2012, 22:42
Agree. I'm done.

Hi Detectorist, I noticed you chose not to address my post addressing sexual orientation.

I just thought that was interesting and was wondering what your response to my post might be.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 22:43
According to the GlockTalk Klan, he's in hell now... and your sister will join him.

:wavey:

I have a gay friend who ran route clearance for a few years and has two purple hearts and two bronze stars.

I guess he's not fit to serve either?

:dunno:

under these peoples opinions. Nope.

They would probably like to see every gay/lesbian person in the country deported to a small island. Because there should be separatism running wild throughout our country.

boby
08-11-2012, 22:48
I find it ironic that the same people who look at gay people as scum are the same people who complain about the erosion of American freedoms.

I can't comprehend how you can not support gay rights in this country. This is the United States. You are supposed to be able to do whatever you want here as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

freeˇdom/ˈfrēdəm/
Noun:

1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 22:50
My sister is a lesbian. Shes also a goddman fine Marine. She took a bullet in COMBAT in Iraq........she wasnt a combat soldier, she drove a TSB truck. But she did a whole lot more for the USA than most of the gay bashers out there.



I hope your Sister has recovered fully.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 22:50
I find it ironic that the same people who look at gay people as scum are the same people who complain about the erosion of American freedoms.

I can't comprehend how you can not support gay rights in this country. This is the United States. You are supposed to be able to do whatever you want here as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

freeˇdom/ˈfrēdəm/
Noun:

1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

Cant forget the ever so present "Separation of Church and State".........that ones gone right out the window.........wait isnt that reason we founded this Country in the FIRST PLACE.........oie.

KalashniKEV
08-11-2012, 22:50
under these peoples opinions. Nope.

...and in 15 years when their children read these posts via Google Time Machine, it will be the same effect as if they found a YouTube video of them swilling a pint of their own urine.

They would probably like to see every gay/lesbian person in the country deported to a small island.

Intolerance on this level confuses me. Why do I care who my neighbor is banging? Why should my neighbor care if I prefer shooting to tennis?

I have a feeling *some* of them would like to have a gay man in their log cabin... just to snuggle up to on those cold nights... perhaps one who also enjoys deer hunting... and can keep a secret...

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 22:56
I hope your Sister has recovered fully.

She has. And thank you for that. I do not mean to be so abrasive about this subject. But it is one very close to my heart, People who i love have died for their country, while being gay. I believe those people deserve the same respect as any soldier. Gay or not. And i believe we should give this Army General the respect she deserves for her Military Accomplishments, regardless of her sexual orientation.

Our country is looked down on daily by the entire world. We are called fat, lazy, stupid, intolerant , ignorant , violent, and oppressive.

And we back that up by oppressing our own people on a daily basis. We disrespect the honnor of the fallen to save face.

Maj. Allen Rodgers U.S. Army was killed in iraq After the dont ask dont tell policy was repealed. The Army asked his family to NOT tell the media that he was GAY. Because they didnt want people to know.

I can not think of any higher form of disrespect for a fallen soldier than that. He was a brother, a son a friend and a soldier. So what if he was gay. He deserves respect none the less. Just as every gay soldier does.

youngdocglock
08-11-2012, 23:00
...and in 15 years when their children read these posts via Google Time Machine, it will be the same effect as if they found a YouTube video of them swilling a pint of their own urine.



Intolerance on this level confuses me. Why do I care who my neighbor is banging? Why should my neighbor care if I prefer shooting to tennis?

I have a feeling *some* of them would like to have a gay man in their log cabin... just to snuggle up to on those cold nights... perhaps one who also enjoys deer hunting... and can keep a secret...

Fear. That simple. I have found that when people dont understand something, can cant come up with a logical reason for something. They fear it, than attack it because they dont get it.

I didnt get it. I thought .........gay.......gross. I had not had contact with any gay people besides my sister, and i believed something was wrong with her. But in my unit we had 3 gay men. 3. I lived with, ate with, fought with these men for 13 months. I grew to know them, their families, their lovers, their hopes, dreams, wants, fears. They became my brothers. I then understood it. Being gay wasnt their choice. They didnt wake up one day and say "aweeee im gonna be gay now!". They were always gay. Its how they were born. God made them that way. And they accepted it. So i accepted them. My hate turned into love, sounds sissy-esque but it happened. I would have died for any one of them, just like any other man or women i served with. Because i was no longer afraid of it. I knew what it was............and i was fine with that.

Detectorist
08-11-2012, 23:00
She has. And thank you for that. I do not mean to be so abrasive about this subject. But it is one very close to my heart, People who i love have died for their country, while being gay. I believe those people deserve the same respect as any soldier. Gay or not. And i believe we should give this Army General the respect she deserves for her Military Accomplishments, regardless of her sexual orientation.

Our country is looked down on daily by the entire world. We are called fat, lazy, stupid, intolerant , ignorant , violent, and oppressive.

And we back that up by oppressing our own people on a daily basis. We disrespect the honnor of the fallen to save face.

Maj. Allen Rodgers U.S. Army was killed in iraq After the dont ask dont tell policy was repealed. The Army asked his family to NOT tell the media that he was GAY. Because they didnt want people to know.

I can not think of any higher form of disrespect for a fallen soldier than that. He was a brother, a son a friend and a soldier. So what if he was gay. He deserves respect none the less. Just as every gay soldier does.

geez, man. A simple 'thank you' would have been enough.

ubimow
08-12-2012, 04:16
It's not like she's lied about her qualifications or having a prior criminal record. She lied under a policy of discrimination that 40 years from now would appear no different than "No colored people" policies do now. She shouldn't have been put in this situation in the first place.

:goodpost:

Foxtrotx1
08-12-2012, 04:21
If she does her job well then who cares who shes going down on?

Sexual orientation doesn't stop you from bleeding the same blood as everyone else in this country.

Sexual orientation doesn't stop you from putting lead in the enemies of the state.

/thread.

Brucev
08-12-2012, 05:33
Re: OP. She's a queer. She is nothing else. She is due nothing else. She's a queer.

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 05:36
... I've seen a female officer fail twice and nothing happened to her. On top of that, I was threatened with disciplinary action of I looked into it further.
Did the threat of disciplinary action make you cease "looking into it further?"

Bren
08-12-2012, 05:43
So a whole load of GTers saying "it's OK that she lied on all her military documents for 25 years, because in year 26 we decided to accept what she was lying about." I'm surprised that at least one of those people was in the military for a while.

The general's supporters seem to think you have to agree that what the general did was morally wrong in order for it to affect her career. My opinion is that the fact that she was lying about it is enough to affect her career - reason? If she lied about anything else, it would affect her career. So, in effect, she got a special pass because she lied about being gay that she would not have gotten for any other lie.

Do we think speeding is a moral wrong? I doubt it - it isn't even an intentional act, many times. Yet it's something you have to tell the truth about on both enlistment documents and security clearance documents - even where the speeding ticket doesn't matter, the lie does. Same for police applications - you tell the truth about a speeding ticket and it's not a big deal; lie and you will not get the job. I remember an application for a large agency that really, really wanted to hire the applicant, because she was a black female applicant and did very well in all of the testing - however, after applying and right before he polygraph, she told them she needed to change her answer on drug use to say that she had smoked marijuana several years before. Due to the length of time, it was not an automatic disqualification, but lying on the application was and I couldn't find a legal way around it, even thought the agency wanted me to. Point being - what she lied about didn't disqualify her - the fact that she lied did. Now imagine congress trying to confirm the promotion of a straight general who had been caught lying about smoking marijuana. Not a chance.

The route to being an officer usually leads through an academy, OCS or ROTC. I believe all 3 follow the same honor code: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

An interesting point - when other generals are promoted, you read about their education and career achievements. All I can find in Gen. Smith's articles is that she's gay. So, the point of the thread, to me, was that Gen. Smith may be fine as far as her duties as an officer, but both the press and the Army are both applying a double standard in her favor.

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 05:45
And how is her sexuality status a threat to National Security? Because she lied? ...

Breaking News: Gays have been serving in the military for longer than we've been alive.
Your admitted culpability and adherence to situational ethics, at least for certain individuals you served with, has been duly noted, but please don't gloss over the issue at hand.
... Breaking News: Gays have been serving in the military for longer than we've been alive.
Have any of those homosexuals you mention ever sought a commission and then lied in order to acquire it? Do you think a heterosexual female should be able to acquire a commission by lying in order to get it?

Chute's made a certainly valid point, yet you chose to glibly gloss over it. Pity.

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 05:51
I think I have told you once before. If you have a beef with me, PM me. Don't be a punk and do it on the forum, but, if you do, I understand, as that's your style.
If I had a nickel for every time... (My family would be out of debt! :supergrin: ) (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19292890#post19292890)

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 06:00
Why do you disagree.

Give one GOOD valid reason why gay or lesbian people should not be allowed to serve. Give one good reason why they are less human and less capable than you or I.

If you can honestly do that. With a Hardened response that gives Valid reason......then i may respect that answer.

But religion has nothing to do with the military. So dont try that one. It wont fly. I love my country. I was willing to die for it. As they are. to me......thats the only thing that matters.
Kind of reaching here aren't you? BTW- With your description of one of your superior ranks, I understand your personal reasoning, but the strident emotionalism you're projecting is baffling considering how you went to a "they are less than human" comment.

I don't find that type of analogy from those disagreeing with this promotion anywhere in this thread, and quite frankly, you haven't either.

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 06:03
What evidence do you have that blacks fought harder than whites, other than some movies that may have led you to believe this?
Hey, if this theme gets expanded to "race," I've got WW-II's, 442nd Infantry Regiment as my ace in the hole.

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 06:05
Yes I am. No I didn't. I disclosed everything including my misremembering weed use to Uncle Sam.
Good for you. If you're a Cop, you should never lie to another Cop, and this paradigm begins during the interview process. (I'm not an LEO.)

bear62
08-12-2012, 06:39
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?

Well ....... they would crap ........

camelotkid
08-12-2012, 06:51
Re: OP. She's a queer. She is nothing else. She is due nothing else. She's a queer.
you keep throwing that word around, and I keep holding my tounge so I don't violate TOS. You are a coward and I guarantee you only call people queer behind their back or on the internet. I highly doubt you would have the balls to call me a queer if we were face to face. You are one of the worst people on GT and you make me sick. :steamed:

berto62
08-12-2012, 07:14
you keep throwing that word around, and I keep holding my tounge so I don't violate TOS. You are a coward and I guarantee you only call people queer behind their back or on the internet. I highly doubt you would have the balls to call me a queer if we were face to face. You are one of the worst people on GT and you make me sick. :steamed:

:thumbsup:

nmk
08-12-2012, 07:15
Good for her. Congratulations Ma'am!

I agree. It's amazing what some people choose to get worked up about.

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 07:30
I have been doing Security Clearance Paperwork since 1993 and sexual orientation is not on the application package. You do have to list family members and if I remember correctly if you are living with anyone. Had not lived with someone not family or married to so not positive. If she lied on that and lived with her Girlfriend then she lied on the form through admission.

If she had any clearance above Confidential and the assigned investigator could not figure out what was going on then they need some new investigators.

When I was in AIT for Army Intelligence one of my friends was a lesbian who joined based on DADT and they where giving her issues as the investigation for clearance turned it up as investigations do. It was a lot of back and forth for her. You had to have the clearance to finish school so I either they gave her interim or full. After a year of AIT she graduated and left for HI and I lost touch with her so not sure if the issue was still an issue after getting to her first assignment or not.

In the end one of the primary thing the clearance investigation is looking for is your likeliness to be blackmailed. Usually accomplished by someone learning something other important people to you don't know and they make you do things to avoid them finding out. In my friends case the army investigator knew and she knew they knew so it was mostly mitigated from a blackmail viewpoint. This was for clearance a few notches above Secret.

I believe she may have had to lie about it again on her security clearance documents throughout the years.

sawgrass
08-12-2012, 07:39
you keep throwing that word around, and I keep holding my tounge so I don't violate TOS. You are a coward and I guarantee you only call people queer behind their back or on the internet. I highly doubt you would have the balls to call me a queer if we were face to face. You are one of the worst people on GT and you make me sick. :steamed:

IIRC he's a minister.:rofl:

Congratulations Gen. Smith!

KalashniKEV
08-12-2012, 07:45
Yet it's something you have to tell the truth about on both enlistment documents and security clearance documents - even where the speeding ticket doesn't matter, the lie does.

This guy lied about his service eligibility too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-05-lucas-obit_N.htm

Do you think we should strip him of the honor, you know... because he lied on the application?

KalashniKEV
08-12-2012, 07:51
In the end one of the primary thing the clearance investigation is looking for is your likeliness to be blackmailed.

I thought it was moral purity and compliance with the sayings of Jesus???

:dunno:

Ummagumma
08-12-2012, 07:53
So a whole load of GTers saying "it's OK that she lied on all her military documents for 25 years, because in year 26 we decided to accept what she was lying about." I'm surprised that at least one of those people was in the military for a while.

The general's supporters seem to think you have to agree that what the general did was morally wrong in order for it to affect her career. My opinion is that the fact that she was lying about it is enough to affect her career - reason? If she lied about anything else, it would affect her career. So, in effect, she got a special pass because she lied about being gay that she would not have gotten for any other lie.

Do we think speeding is a moral wrong? I doubt it - it isn't even an intentional act, many times. Yet it's something you have to tell the truth about on both enlistment documents and security clearance documents - even where the speeding ticket doesn't matter, the lie does. Same for police applications - you tell the truth about a speeding ticket and it's not a big deal; lie and you will not get the job. I remember an application for a large agency that really, really wanted to hire the applicant, because she was a black female applicant and did very well in all of the testing - however, after applying and right before he polygraph, she told them she needed to change her answer on drug use to say that she had smoked marijuana several years before. Due to the length of time, it was not an automatic disqualification, but lying on the application was and I couldn't find a legal way around it, even thought the agency wanted me to. Point being - what she lied about didn't disqualify her - the fact that she lied did. Now imagine congress trying to confirm the promotion of a straight general who had been caught lying about smoking marijuana. Not a chance.

The route to being an officer usually leads through an academy, OCS or ROTC. I believe all 3 follow the same honor code: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

An interesting point - when other generals are promoted, you read about their education and career achievements. All I can find in Gen. Smith's articles is that she's gay. So, the point of the thread, to me, was that Gen. Smith may be fine as far as her duties as an officer, but both the press and the Army are both applying a double standard in her favor.

Bren,

I fully understand your point of view, and respect it. However, I believe that there are questions and restrictions which are inherently immoral / unethical and lying about them is not morally wrong. As I said earlier, 70 years ago we could have the same conversation about someone who lied about their race. I am sure today you wouldn't even think of bringing it up. This is different from lying about your acts (drug use, etc.) because you can control your acts; you can't control your biology, and it has nothing to do with one's ability to fight for their country.

pmcjury
08-12-2012, 08:17
It's not about her being gay, is about the fact that she it's a a liar. She led and broke the law for now than two decades to get a head in her given career field. I field she knew she would have to lie to be admitted to. Lying because you don't agree with the rules is bull**** plan and simple.

It may not be a national security issue now, but before DADT was repealed it certainly was. What would she have been willing to so to keep from being outed as gay.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

ChuteTheMall
08-12-2012, 08:35
This is different from lying about your acts (drug use, etc.) because you can control your acts; you can't control your biology, and it has nothing to do with one's ability to fight for their country.

Are you implying that you can't control your sexual behavior?
:aodnsb:

HexHead
08-12-2012, 09:37
Bottom line. She lied on forms, regardless of whether she thought the issue was moral or not, or that it's legal now. All of those excuses are just smoke & mirrors to make you fag hags feel better about yourselves. Bren is correct, she lied and can't be trusted with the responsibilities now given to her.

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 10:07
Bottom line. She lied on forms, regardless of whether she thought the issue was moral or not, or that it's legal now. All of those excuses are just smoke & mirrors to make you fag hags feel better about yourselves. Bren is correct, she lied and can't be trusted with the responsibilities now given to her.

Have to read up to see if she did. If she did not feel she was a homosexual at time she entered service then which form did she lie on? After dadt she had to not tell.

Detectorist
08-12-2012, 10:08
Did the threat of disciplinary action make you cease "looking into it further?"

Yes. But the damage had been done. There were many things that I looked into that was deemed not my business even though I thought it was my job.

HarlDane
08-12-2012, 10:13
If we kicked out every General who lied about breaking the military's rules on sex during their careers, I have a feeling we might have a shortage in leadership.

gwalchmai
08-12-2012, 10:38
Threads like this really illustrate how the left has corrupted morality in the US. People condoning military officers lying while serving, gomers with no credibility accusing American heroes of homosexuality without even a pretense of evidence, left-leaning members slandering all those who disagree with PC opinion.

It's really sad.

Cali-Glock
08-12-2012, 10:53
How would you feel if she was Jewish and there was a policy against Jews serving? Then years later the discriminative policy was eliminated. Would you think her hiding her religion was justified?

Why try to make a correlation between one's ethnicity or faith to one's actions? It is a FALSE. Stop it!

HexHead
08-12-2012, 11:14
Threads like this really illustrate how the left has corrupted morality in the US. People condoning military officers lying while serving, gomers with no credibility accusing American heroes of homosexuality without even a pretense of evidence, left-leaning members slandering all those who disagree with PC opinion.

It's really sad.

It's a question of ethics, which is something sadly lacking here, which is funny considering the high and mighty stance so many GNG members make on so many topics. Either you tolerate liars, or you don't. Period.

Her only ceremony should,be like the beginning of the TV show Branded, where she's stripped of rank, buttons cut off, sword broken and walked out in humility and shame.

kiole
08-12-2012, 11:23
Why try to make a correlation between one's ethnicity or faith to one's actions? It is a FALSE. Stop it!

I believe being gay is a genetic or psychological trait not a choice. Sexual orientation should be a protected class which prevents discrimination. The rules were unjust thE same as if you weren't allowed to serve based on race or faith.

I am attracted to women and don't find men attractive. I've never consciously told myself to like women so I assume the same occurs for those who are gay but towardS thE same sex.

If your in the camp of its a voluntary action to be gay, then the same is true with religion. One chooses their faith and decides to continue practicing their faith. My comparison is perfectly valid if you believe sexual orientation is a action of choice.

Glock13
08-12-2012, 13:07
I am not very religious, but I do believe in God. I also vehemently defend Christians whenever they are attacked. This applies to the gay issue as well. I personally think gays should have the right to marry and serve openly in the military. The more I hear out of many on the right really leads me to believe there is a lot of hate inside some of you. Some of you are now arguing that it is only because she "lied" that you be live she should be kicked out. C'mon guys...nobody is buying that. I really hope many of you take the time to sit down and at least consider the other side. I think your actions and your words are not only wrong, but are doing a huge disfavor to conservatives and our values.

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 13:22
Bren,

I fully understand your point of view, and respect it. However, I believe that there are questions and restrictions which are inherently immoral / unethical and lying about them is not morally wrong. As I said earlier, 70 years ago we could have the same conversation about someone who lied about their race. I am sure today you wouldn't even think of bringing it up. This is different from lying about your acts (drug use, etc.) because you can control your acts; you can't control your biology, and it has nothing to do with one's ability to fight for their country.
Your seriously trying to benchmark "race" issues and homosexuality as civil rights? This requires a "born that way" premise, which being "born homosexual" was long ago proven, IIRC well over a decade ago, not to happen and to not be the case. People are NOT born homosexuals. The militant homosexual left pushed for this attribute so as to garner fore their agenda a civil rights platform supposedly equal to that of other minorities in this country. It was shown to be an endgame strategy and completely false assertion.

The homosexual militants, which are ardent about their agenda, have "marching orders" and will cease at nothing to see them to fruition. It's in public domain and without exclusive copyright, but due to its violation of TOS at this site, I'll simply post the link.

Everyone, regardless of your opinion on this matter of a promotion or homosexuality in general, should carefully read the following, The Homosexual Manifesto. (http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/homosexual.html)

HKLovingIT
08-12-2012, 13:26
Are you implying that you can't control your sexual behavior?



I can't. That's why I have 36 kids with 23 different moms. I thank you all for your tax contributions. My shorties appreciate the new sneakers. :wavey:

In other news...

I don't want to know what people are doing in their bedrooms unless it's Detectorist and he is going to come up with a GNG Lounge worthy story about this 18 yo waitress situation. (Check for a Bravia.) :wavey:

I follow the DTIDA policy. Don't Tell, I Didn't Ask.


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1860/bm01r.jpg

If she was born this way then she knew going in right? At the time she entered the service the law and policy were what they were. She had to fill out forms that said that she affirmed the information she was giving was true under penalty of up to 10 years and $10,000. They don't say "It's okay to lie on this form if you believe that the current policy is unfair, unjust or you don't like it."

If she discovered she was gay after DADT went into effect or if you are not of the "born this way" belief, she chose to be gay after DADT, then I guess she is all clear on any minor ethical questions concerning the veracity of sworn statements she may have made to secure entry to the service or a security clearance under the polices that were in effect at the time.

So it seems pretty clear:

If she was born this way. She knew since forever, and she had to have lied in violation of the laws and polices in effect at the time she entered the service.

If people are not born this way, and she chose to be gay, then I guess it all comes down to timing.

Or maybe she was born this way but had no idea until after DADT went into effect? :dunno:

Of course then again, I know that if you have a clearance they do a little leg work to investigate your background. It's entirely possibly she was never gay and the Army made her gay recently. Otherwise it might have come up before.

Which cake ya wanna have and eat?

No, I don't think being gay has any effect on a person's ability to do a job and yes I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I do think that for certain jobs like, oh I don't know, General, that people have to be held to a very high standard. Like, lying on official documents and security clearance questionnaires should probably not be okay.

Did she do that? I have no idea.

arclight610
08-12-2012, 13:31
I am not very religious, but I do believe in God. I also vehemently defend Christians whenever they are attacked. This applies to the gay issue as well. I personally think gays should have the right to marry and serve openly in the military. The more I hear out of many on the right really leads me to believe there is a lot of hate inside some of you. Some of you are now arguing that it is only because she "lied" that you be live she should be kicked out. C'mon guys...nobody is buying that. I really hope many of you take the time to sit down and at least consider the other side. I think your actions and your words are not only wrong, but are doing a huge disfavor to conservatives and our values.

Lying is a big deal. If a general was an alcoholic, but signed forms stating that he wasn't he/she should be punished just the same.

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 13:38
Are you implying that you can't control your sexual behavior?
:aodnsb:

I think you obviously control your actions but not necessarily your attraction. Attraction is just wired into you at a low level. This can be the preference for blonds over brunettes, jeans and heels over an evening gown or leather over lace or guys vs. girls. Even one has their hot buttons. If you have no hot buttons that get you going you should try harder as I bet you do...

I am still waiting for something that says she did lie. She is currently living as a lesbian which is not a violation of current policy. I assume she was living as a lesbian during DADT which also was not a violation of policy as long as she did not tell.

Did she start living as a lesbian prior to DADT but after she entered service? Maybe, but I have not read that yet. If so she was in violation of the policy but unless she was asked and said no she did not lie.

If she was living as a lesbian at time she entered service and was asked and said no then she lied / fraudulent enlistment.

Because she is now a lesbian and carrying on as such does not tell us when that period of her life started so I can't say at what point if at all she lied and at what point if at all her lifestyle was in violation of Army policy.

If she lied to the Army or a commanding officer or investigator then IMO she should face a penalty. I felt the same about the SEALs a few years ago that smacked around a prisoner and then lied to the investigator and their commanding officer about it. They could have cut his throat and tossed him in a ditch for all I care but don't lie about it. If you can't trust the person to give you the truth then not much reason to trust them or for that matter even talking to them is a waste of time as you are not confident in the answer.

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 13:45
I offer a third option she was born that way but didn't know. Things just seemed off as she matured and she always thought she just had not found the right guy. Eventually she learned about her self and found something that worked for her. So would still be timing but if she thought she was hetero and answered as such but learned later she wasn't it does not mean she lied. Most of those forms say to the best of your knowledge.

I have no evidence in this case that is the way it happened but I have not read anything other then she is now gay and has a girlfriend. On all sides of the issue we are just guessing about the past. If someone has information about prior conduct provide it.




So it seems pretty clear:

If she was born this way. She knew since forever, and she had to have lied in violation of the laws and polices in effect at the time.

If people are not born this way, and she chose to be gay, then I guess it all comes down to timing.

Or maybe she was born this way but had no idea until after DADT went into effect? :dunno:

Which cake ya wanna have and eat?

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 13:50
General, that people have to be held to a very high standard. Like, lying on official documents and security clearance questionnaires should probably not be okay.

Did she do that? I have no idea.

Security Clearance Questionnaires since 1993 (as far as I go back) does not ask your sexual orientation. The only sex related question is if you are Male or Female.

If you are going for a high level clearance TS and up it is likely going to come out as the investigator investigates. i commented earlier in the thread how that played out for a friend in 1993.

HKLovingIT
08-12-2012, 13:54
I offer a third option she was born that way but didn't know. Things just seemed off as she matured and she always thought she just had not found the right guy. Eventually she learned about her self and found something that worked for her. So would still be timing but if she thought she was hetero and answered as such but learned later she wasn't it does not mean she lied. Most of those forms say to the best of your knowledge.

I have no evidence in this case that is the way it happened but I have not read anything other then she is now gay and has a girlfriend. On all sides of the issue we are just guessing about the past. If someone has information about prior conduct provide it.

That was one of mine as well:

"Or maybe she was born this way but had no idea until after DADT went into effect? :dunno:"

Anything is possible.

Seems the central questions is: Did she lie on her entry papers and security clearance questions, and if so, is that okay or no big deal now that the policy has changed. Does that make her previous lying (if she did) moot?

That seems to be the object of what the debate is about. Least to me.

We have, and never will have any reliable information to determine what the case is, so it's just our usual Interwebz debating. :wavey: :rofl:

HKLovingIT
08-12-2012, 13:56
Security Clearance Questionnaires since 1993 (as far as I go back) does not ask your sexual orientation. The only sex related question is if you are Male or Female.

If you are going for a high level clearance TS and up it is likely going to come out as the investigator investigates. i commented earlier in the thread how that played out for a friend in 1993.

I don't recall as I go back further than that. I'll go back and check out your previous post. Like I said, I don't care if someone is gay. I don't see that it has any bearing on job performance.

The issue worth discussing would be about willful deception, if that occurred, and how that might have a bearing on a person's suitability to be in a position of senior leadership.:dunno: I guess not much though considering how much people lie their butts off to get elected and we keep voting for them. :rofl:

boby
08-12-2012, 14:16
Everyone, regardless of your opinion on this matter of a promotion or homosexuality in general, should carefully read the following, The Homosexual Manifesto. (http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/homosexual.html)

This crap is on the same level as "Those evil blacks will rape and kill the white women, he is a savage beast."

arclight610
08-12-2012, 14:21
This crap is on the same level as "Those evil blacks will rape and kill the white women, he is a savage beast."

Actually, there is alot of truth in that statement.

Annoyedgrunt
08-12-2012, 14:30
Actually, there is alot of truth in that statement.

Whatever you say, David Duke.

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 14:31
This crap is on the same level as "Those evil blacks will rape and kill the white women, he is a savage beast."
No, this was written by a male, homosexual strategist as a manifesto for other homosexual men to consider. I'm sure your response, like the tired rhetoric above, if ever true, was written by someone even you'd think was a "white man."

Besides, the homosexual agenda has literally NOTHING, and I mean it literally has NADA, ZIP, ZERO things to do with civil rights in general and or the Civil Rights movement in particular.

You're mixing apples and moon rocks with this comparison.

gwalchmai
08-12-2012, 14:34
Whatever you say, David Duke.Or, if you prefer, the FBI's crime reports.

boby
08-12-2012, 14:34
No, this was written by a male, homosexual strategist as a manifesto for other homosexual men to consider. I'm sure your response, like the tired rhetoric above, if ever true, was written by someone even you'd think was a "white man."

Besides, the homosexual agenda has literally NOTHING, and I mean has NADA, ZIP, ZERO things to do with civil rights in general and or the Civil Rights movement in particular.

It was written by a homosexual, clearly it must be what every homosexual believes. :upeyes:

In fact it is a civil rights issue.

civil rights

Noun:
The rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

The term social refers to a characteristic of living organisms as applied to populations of humans and other animals. It always refers to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary.

Sure seems like a civil rights issue to me.

magic
08-12-2012, 14:40
http://i48.tinypic.com/actqms.jpg

:pjmn:

Oh no, it's facing the wrong way! All the gay soldiers patches are in the retreat position!

ChuteTheMall
08-12-2012, 14:41
Either she was born gay, lied about it, and is therefore subject to ten years in prison for lying about this, or homosexual behavior is a choice which anyone could possibly make.

The only third choice would be that it's somehow contagious, kinda like leprosy or liberalism.
How then should it be quarantined, assuming there is no vaccine or cure?

:headscratch:

Peace Warrior
08-12-2012, 14:48
It was written by a homosexual, clearly it must be what every homosexual believes. :upeyes:

In fact it is a civil rights issue.

civil rights

Noun:
The rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

The term social refers to a characteristic of living organisms as applied to populations of humans and other animals. It always refers to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary.

Sure seems like a civil rights issue to me.
Like I said prior, you're still mixing apples and moon rocks in your comparison.

Civil rights cover the broad spectrum of rights as a created being. These supersede governmental rights and are codified so as to prevent discrimination against people based on such things as "RACE," age, religion, national origin, ethnicity and gender.

The attempt to label homosexuality as a civil right is simply something that a group of homosexuals have cooked up themselves. The concept of "being born homosexual" was exposed and admitted to by some of the militants long, long ago.

Diesel McBadass
08-12-2012, 15:27
congrats to the general, wish the best of luck.

Glock13
08-12-2012, 16:20
I wonder how many of you would be for stripping a Medal of Honor recipient if you found out he did pot before they signed up and lied about it. Anyone?

NeverMore1701
08-12-2012, 16:23
I wonder how many of you would be for stripping a Medal of Honor recipient if you found out he did pot before they signed up and lied about it. Anyone?

Most people here, apparently, along with dishing out a CM and DD.

JW1178
08-12-2012, 16:27
I wonder how many of you would be for stripping a Medal of Honor recipient if you found out he did pot before they signed up and lied about it. Anyone?

No kidding.

The idea behind "no gays in the military" is for the same reason they separate male and females. They don't want hanky panky getting in the way of duties. They also don't want other members of the military uncomfortable with each other.

A buddy of mine was in the USMC and another Marine blew kisses at him a few times just to mess with him, not because he was actually gay, and it got that guy discharged. Now, that wouldn't happen.

I have no problem with gays serving, but sexual harassment needs to be taken seriously, and I'm afraid gays will get away with it because if they are punished for it they will just scream discrimination.

Brucev
08-12-2012, 16:34
Deleted.

Diesel McBadass
08-12-2012, 16:34
Before DADT everyone knew who the gays were, as long as it didnt interfere with duties (never did) nobody gave a crap. Girl i was in my a school with came out the day of the repeal and we were like "knew already."

427
08-12-2012, 16:34
An honor code violation will get you canned.

West Point honor code
"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

United States Air Force Academy
We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.

United States Naval Academy
"Who lives here reveres honor, honors duty; we neither lie, cheat, steal nor attempt to deceive."

The United States Coast Guard Academy
"Who lives here reveres honor, honors duty; we neither lie, cheat, steal nor attempt to deceive."


Lying IS a big deal! She should be held to the same standard as cadet/midshipmen with an honor code violation.

NeverMore1701
08-12-2012, 16:34
No kidding.

The idea behind "no gays in the military" is for the same reason they separate male and females. They don't want hanky panky getting in the way of duties. They also don't want other members of the military uncomfortable with each other.

A buddy of mine was in the USMC and another Marine blew kisses at him a few times just to mess with him, not because he was actually gay, and it got that guy discharged. Now, that wouldn't happen.

I have no problem with gays serving, but sexual harassment needs to be taken seriously, and I'm afraid gays will get away with it because if they are punished for it they will just scream discrimination.

There's got to be more to it than that, 90% of the Soldiers I ever met did that and more, jokingly of course.

magic
08-12-2012, 16:36
I wonder how many of you would be for stripping a Medal of Honor recipient if you found out he did pot before they signed up and lied about it. Anyone?

The OP stated that to join the army, you must sign on your application that you are not a homosexual. I assume that is a true statement because nobody here has argued it as a false fact. And he assumes she might have had to sign again throughout her career for security clearance. If that's true, I would find her lie a little worse considering that she is still gay every day she lies about it, compared to your hypothetical MoH recipient who lied about something that happened in the past and is no longer using drugs on a regular basis.

With that said, I don't care if there are gays in the military. Americans are Americans and if you want to serve your country, I don't care what you like to do in bed as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Really, why should anyone care what someone does in their personal time unless it affects their ability to do their job?

JW1178
08-12-2012, 16:46
There's got to be more to it than that, 90% of the Soldiers I ever met did that and more, jokingly of course.

Well, I only know the story from one person. I guess that Marine was doing it to others as well, and he was not well liked. It's kind of one thing when you do it to people you are friends with, my buddies and I do that.

XOXOXOXOXO :tongueout:

NeverMore1701
08-12-2012, 16:49
Well, I only know the story from one person. I guess that Marine was doing it to others as well, and he was not well liked. It's kind of one thing when you do it to people you are friends with, my buddies and I do that.

XOXOXOXOXO :tongueout:

Right back to you snookums :whistling:

zoyter2
08-12-2012, 16:58
I have often wondered how the backwards ass, ignorant, white trash, dumbasses managed to take the stances they did in the 50's. Now I wonder what they will hate when the majority of Americans finally decide to allow gays, like blacks, have the same rights as anyone else, and homophobia and those who embrace it is found to be as unacceptably ignorant as the racially bigoted and their ilk are today?

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 17:03
I thought we had highly trained professional Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines.... I would expect them to act like professionals.

No kidding.

The idea behind "no gays in the military" is for the same reason they separate male and females. They don't want hanky panky getting in the way of duties. They also don't want other members of the military uncomfortable with each other.

Glock13
08-12-2012, 17:17
I wonder how many of you would be for stripping a Medal of Honor recipient if you found out he did pot before they signed up and lied about it. Anyone?

So far we have no takers. A lot of talk about how a "lie is a lie", but now everybody is silent.

427
08-12-2012, 17:21
So far we have no takers. A lot of talk about how a "lie is a lie", but now everybody is silent.

Was there an MOH recipient who lied about smoking pot before his enlistment?

Glock13
08-12-2012, 17:51
Was there an MOH recipient who lied about smoking pot before his enlistment?

If there was, would you strip him of it? It is a simple question.

Glock13
08-12-2012, 17:56
Was there an MOH recipient who lied about smoking pot before his enlistment?

Well, there is at least one who was using it during combat...

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU57.html

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 18:04
Was there an MOH recipient who lied about smoking pot before his enlistment?

I am trying to remember if that was even a question when I enlisted (1993). You took a drug test but I don't remember the question.

I will loosely answer the question. I think someone who fradulently enlisted or entered as an officer should face a penalty if the Govt can prove it and show damages. The financial penalty would be based on damages the government encumbered. Cheating the vision test to go through flight school then cant fly would be a pretty big financial damage to the government. Going through Selection and being trained as a Delta Operator for a couple hundred K then saying it is against your beliefs to shoot at someone is damages.

Applied to this particular case I am not sure the government suffered any damages seemed they got a lot of service from her and unless she tells them she lied their chance of proving she was a homosexual when she said she wasn't upon entering the service is going to be difficult and probably a waste of government resources. If they could maybe they can kick her out and take away her retirement save the country some money... :dunno:

Just hope they apply that equally and go over every ones paperwork. A bunch in WWII lied about age. Hard to debate that one so we should have took away bennies after we were done with them saved a few bucks. Bunch of liars.... :whistling:

Phaze5ive
08-12-2012, 18:05
Was there an MOH recipient who lied about smoking pot before his enlistment?

We'll never know because no one sweats the small stuff.

There will always be former pot heads, sodomy, and gays in the military of yesterdays, today, and tomorrow.

fnfalman
08-12-2012, 18:19
What would McArthur, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy think of this crap?

McArthur and Patton would be too busy killing American veterans who only wanted what was due to them.

Bradley and Nimitz probably too busy trying to establish their power bases.

Sergeant York and Audie Murphy were too busy killing jerries to give a damn.

fnfalman
08-12-2012, 18:21
As far as lying goes...anybody here; veterans and active duty alike, can tell me that they have yet to lie about anything while on duty?

Let those without sins cast the first stone.

ChuteTheMall
08-12-2012, 18:32
90% of the Soldiers I ever met did that and more

Wow, 90%?

You must be incredibly attractive.

:aodnsb:

"...and more?"

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 18:38
McArthur and Patton would be too busy killing American veterans who only wanted what was due to them.

Bradley and Nimitz probably too busy trying to establish their power bases.

Sergeant York and Audie Murphy were too busy killing jerries to give a damn.

Audie Murphy fraudulently enlisted so he should have been booted anyways.... :whistling: Right??

In June 1942, shortly after what he and his sister Corrine believed was his 17th birthday, Corrine adjusted his birth date so he appeared to be 18 and legally able to enlist.

Lampshade
08-12-2012, 18:47
...or homosexual behavior is a choice which anyone could possibly make.

Of course homosexual behavior is a choice. So is heterosexual behavior.

It is kind of sad though that we have several full grown adults in this thread who don't understand the difference between sexual activity and sexual orientation.

G26S239
08-12-2012, 19:31
there was gay sex on the sands of normandy
Well if there really were gays doing each other at Normandy while everyone else was busy trying to take France back I can understand how the resulting resentment caused the anti homosexuality article to be put in the UCMJ in 1952. They really should have exercised better self control. :rofl:

427
08-12-2012, 19:37
If there was, would you strip him of it? It is a simple question.

If it came down to him getting stripped I say, he created his own problems by lying.

People are canned/stripped of awards for honor violations, but if they can get away with whatever they do, fine, I guess.

That's the whole issue with this thread - Lying.

Should a sitting president be impeached for lying under oath?

Ummagumma
08-12-2012, 19:44
Are you implying that you can't control your sexual behavior?
:aodnsb:

Well, enlighten me; was the question asked (before DADT) if you were a homosexual - which is biology - or if you engaged in said behavior ?

If someone said that they were a celibate homosexual, would they still be allowed to enlist ?

Do you imply that there was no straight soldiers fooling around ? Or are you saying they are all unworthy of being promoted or honorably discharged ?

This whole argument is worthy of Sen. Larry Craig.

Ummagumma
08-12-2012, 19:53
Like I said prior, you're still mixing apples and moon rocks in your comparison.

Civil rights cover the broad spectrum of rights as a created being. These supersede governmental rights and are codified so as to prevent discrimination against people based on such things as "RACE," age, religion, national origin, ethnicity and gender.

The attempt to label homosexuality as a civil right is simply something that a group of homosexuals have cooked up themselves. The concept of "being born homosexual" was exposed and admitted to by some of the militants long, long ago.

The statement worthy of Sarah ;) They exposed what exactly ? The concept ? As in, you seem to imply that it's a choice ?

People are being born homosexual. Heck, penguins are being born homosexual - ask Google if you don't believe me. Just because Judeo-Christian beliefs shun homosexuality doesn't mean it's a "choice". It's a biologically hard wired deviation. Just like Albinos.

G26S239
08-12-2012, 19:54
Well, enlighten me; was the question asked (before DADT) if you were a homosexual - which is biology - or if you engaged in said behavior ?

If someone said that they were a celibate homosexual, would they still be allowed to enlist ?

Do you imply that there was no straight soldiers fooling around ? Or are you saying they are all unworthy of being promoted or honorably discharged ?

This whole argument is worthy of Sen. Larry Craig.

Yes the question was on enlistment papers in 1977. And probably for years afterward.

Ummagumma
08-12-2012, 19:56
Yes the question was on enlistment papers in 1977. And probably for years afterward.

Again, what question exactly ? About being a homosexual, or about engaging in sex with people of same gender ? 1st is biology, 2nd is biology+choice (although I believe that it's unnatural for a healthy adult to make a choice to stay celibate).

Detectorist
08-12-2012, 19:59
Do you imply that there was no straight soldiers fooling around ?



I can only assume that straight soldiers don't fool around with each other.

To me, putting gay soldiers in the same housing as straight soldiers is like housing men and women together, in the same rooms.

G26S239
08-12-2012, 20:09
Again, what question exactly ? About being a homosexual, or about engaging in sex with people of same gender ? 1st is biology, 2nd is biology+choice (although I believe that it's unnatural for a healthy adult to make a choice to stay celibate).
Both, as in Are you a homosexual or have you engaged in homsexual acts? as I recall or words to that effect. It is also an article that was specifically covered in RTC basic training in the UCMJ class.

Phaze5ive
08-12-2012, 20:11
To me, putting gay soldiers in the same housing as straight soldiers is like housing men and women together, in the same rooms.

It's pretty self evident that gay dudes don't go for straight dudes and straight dudes don't go for gay dudes. How is it like housing men and women together again?

Jon_R
08-12-2012, 20:15
Again, what question exactly ? About being a homosexual, or about engaging in sex with people of same gender ? 1st is biology, 2nd is biology+choice (although I believe that it's unnatural for a healthy adult to make a choice to stay celibate).

In 1992 the question was "Are you a homosexual?" Asked to you by a Doctor at least at MEPS station in Jacksonville. It was asked verbally and I don't remember then signing it though I assume there is a legal hook in there somewhere with it.

I didn't get in at that time. :whistling: Took a prescription medication 9 months earlier that barred me for a year after stop taking it. I came back in 1993 after a year in college after DADT was in place and got in... I am sticking to the medicine story... When I went back the doctor took my old chart and a black marker and blacked out the previous question and answer.

devildog2067
08-12-2012, 20:16
I thought we had highly trained professional Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines.... I would expect them to act like professionals.

I served in the Marine Corps with some of the most courageous and motivated men and women I have ever known, and I trusted each and every one of them with my life.

On the other hand, we were still a bunch of mostly 18-to-20-year old kids, and we did all kinds of stupid **** all the time, from grabass to hazing to fighting to drinking like idiots. Expect a bunch of Marines to act like professionals in combat or on the drill field and they will impress you. Expect a bunch of Marines to act like professionals all the time and you will be sorely disappointed.

boby
08-12-2012, 20:19
The statement worthy of Sarah ;) They exposed what exactly ? The concept ? As in, you seem to imply that it's a choice ?

People are being born homosexual. Heck, penguins are being born homosexual - ask Google if you don't believe me. Just because Judeo-Christian beliefs shun homosexuality doesn't mean it's a "choice". It's a biologically hard wired deviation. Just like Albinos.

You can't reason with these people. They are blinded by religion.

ColdSteelNail
08-12-2012, 20:19
Thanks for your service general and congrats.

Who you fall in love with or sleep with is your business.

fnfalman
08-12-2012, 22:29
Audie Murphy fraudulently enlisted so he should have been booted anyways.... :whistling: Right??

Take back his MOH!!!

fnfalman
08-12-2012, 22:30
I can only assume that straight soldiers don't fool around with each other.

To me, putting gay soldiers in the same housing as straight soldiers is like housing men and women together, in the same rooms.

Why? Because the straight guys suddenly grow ******s and can't defend themselves against these supposedly homo horn dog rapists?

NEOH212
08-12-2012, 23:23
Who cares what a bunch of dead guys think?

There are some of us that value their opinion because it is the right one. :supergrin:

This kind of crap is ruining this country and world. Believe what you want but people that engage in deviant behavior will have to answer for it someday.

And if you don't believe that your entitled not to. Just remember that unbelief doesn't make it any less true or the sinner any less guilty.

:wavey:

NeverMore1701
08-12-2012, 23:28
Belief makes something as true as disbelief makes it false.

fnfalman
08-12-2012, 23:28
There are some of us that value their opinion because it is the right one. :supergrin:

This kind of crap is ruining this country and world. Believe what you want but people that engage in deviant behavior will have to answer for it someday.

And if you don't believe that your entitled not to. Just remember that unbelief doesn't make it any less true or the sinner any less guilty.

:wavey:

Let's round'em up, tattoo'em and put them in the gas chambers. That'll solve the deviancy and moral corruption problems.

Detectorist
08-12-2012, 23:38
Why? Because the straight guys suddenly grow ******s and can't defend themselves against these supposedly homo horn dog rapists?

Why should they even have to think about defending themselves? Why should they lose their privacy?

M&P Shooter
08-12-2012, 23:40
Her photo frightened me:shocked:

Glock13
08-13-2012, 00:01
If it came down to him getting stripped I say, he created his own problems by lying.

People are canned/stripped of awards for honor violations, but if they can get away with whatever they do, fine, I guess.

That's the whole issue with this thread - Lying.

Should a sitting president be impeached for lying under oath?

So, to be clear, you would strip him of his Medal of Honor for lying about pot use prior to enlistment?

427
08-13-2012, 00:43
So, to be clear, you would strip him of his Medal of Honor for lying about pot use prior to enlistment?

Let's do a little multiple choice.

A) I stated that he created his problem by lying in the first place.

B)I then stated that people get impeached/fired for honor violations. I opined that I guess it's OK that some people get away with it.

C)I stated that I thought the core issue in the OP was about lying.

D) I then asked if a sitting president should be impeached for lying under oath.

Where did I specifically state I would do anything?

1) A
2) B
3) C
4) D

427
08-13-2012, 00:49
So, to be clear, you would strip him of his Medal of Honor for lying about pot use prior to enlistment?

For my amusement and probably the amusement of others, lets say I said yes.

I know you are itching to make a statement and go off on me, so have at it, son!!!

Please be original!

Glock13
08-13-2012, 01:39
For my amusement and probably the amusement of others, lets say I said yes.

I know you are itching to make a statement and go off on me, so have at it, son!!!

Please be original!

You just proved my point that this case isn't about lying...it is about people not wanting gays in the military. You wouldn't answer the question and neither will anyone else in this thread who has been saying it is all about integrity and "lying".

427
08-13-2012, 02:22
You just proved my point that this case isn't about lying...it is about people not wanting gays in the military. You wouldn't answer the question and neither will anyone else in this thread who has been saying it is all about integrity and "lying".

It is about lying.

It's none of my business if people are gay or not. More importantly, why would I care? All I would care about is if person can do their job competently and not get me killed.

The fact is/was that she lied. She got away with it and now doesn't have to worry. Was it moral/ethical? Who am I to say?

As for your made up MOH recipient, I'll say it again, he caused his own problems by lying. He has only himself to blame.

Glock13
08-13-2012, 02:30
It is about lying.

It's none of my business if people are gay or not. More importantly, why would I care? All I would care about is if person can do their job competently and not get me killed.

The fact is/was that she lied. She got away with it and now doesn't have to worry. Was it moral/ethical? Who am I to say?

As for your made up MOH recipient, I'll say it again, he caused his own problems by lying. He has only himself to blame.

Ok, you seem to just be dancing around the issue.

1). Should the General be forced out of the military, etc?

2) Should a MOH recipient who lied about pot use to join up be stripped of his MOH?

Yes or no?

427
08-13-2012, 02:43
Ok, you seem to just be dancing around the issue.

1). Should the General be forced out of the military, etc? She'll still be in the military regardless of what I think.

2) Should a MOH recipient who lied about pot use to join up be stripped of his MOH?

Yes or no? Your fictional character made his own problems. BTW, how did he get caught in his lie?

Detectorist
08-13-2012, 04:05
An interesting tidbit, which hasn't been mentioned on here is that promotion to General has to be approved and voted on by the Senate. I'm sure they were aware of her need to lie, if in fact she did, way back when.

Bren
08-13-2012, 04:47
Ok, you seem to just be dancing around the issue.

1). Should the General be forced out of the military, etc?

2) Should a MOH recipient who lied about pot use to join up be stripped of his MOH?

Yes or no?

NO. The answer is pretty obvious - the medal of honor is given for specific acts and has nothing to do with the soldier's career, before or after.

Promotion, on the other hand, is based on the whole career. If this general had 20 years in and joined during Don't Ask Don't Tell, that would be perfectly legitimate. I'd suspect the promotion, or the surrounding publicity, was political and was being used to motivate a particular voting base at this particular time (a group that is small but has a lot of influence in the media) but there wouldn't be the same question.

In this case, the Army has chosen to promote an officer to general who has made it clear that she has lied to the Army, her superiors, subordinates, etc., throughout her careeer.

An interesting tidbit, which hasn't been mentioned on here is that promotion to General has to be approved and voted on by the Senate. I'm sure they were aware of her need to lie, if in fact she did, way back when.

Maybe and maybe not - it probably isn't in her military records that the senate reviews. I don't know how much outside investigation is done. Prior to this administration, any actual mention in her records that she was a lesbian would have been cause to throw her out of the Army.

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 04:49
There's got to be more to it than that, 90% of the Soldiers I ever met did that and more, jokingly of course.
Whoever kicked him out never set foot on a construction sight either.

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 04:51
... I'd suspect the promotion, or the surrounding publicity, was political and was being used to motivate a particular voting base at this particular time (a group that is small but has a lot of influence in the media) but there wouldn't be the same question. ...
If you think about it, any promotion past O3 is 93% political anyway.

Detectorist
08-13-2012, 05:24
[QUOTE=Bren;19301935] I'd suspect the promotion, or the surrounding publicity, was political and was being used to motivate a particular voting base at this particular time (a group that is small but has a lot of influence in the media) but there wouldn't be the same question.

I'm sure this has been more than a normal political promotion. It has been carefully orchestrated. So I agree with you.

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 06:23
Of course homosexual behavior is a choice. So is heterosexual behavior.

It is kind of sad though that we have several full grown adults in this thread who don't understand the difference between sexual activity and sexual orientation.
You're playing the "word magic" game now, which is typical of what some people to do when it comes to the homosexual's agenda for this country's children. Lampshade, I don't play word magic.

First, you really shouldn't use the noun -orientation- without it's adjective -sexual- when discussing this particular topic. Too much is lost when magically one word is eliminated and only half of the intended meaning is then being conferred. Please note, it is sexual orientation we are discussing, not simply the noun and word -orientation.-

Sexual activity is directly related to sexual orientation, but most here would agree you that the two are not the same thing. Both sexual activity and sexual orientation can change drastically over time. If a person's sexual orientation changes, were they really born that way? Maybe people have something else influencing their sexual orientation aside from being born (i.e., alive)?

Contrariwise, Civil Rights are imparted upon people from their births. Civil Rights NEVER legally change. These rights may be restricted, or infringed upon, but they never legally change. As far as sexual orientation, it can be manipulated or changed simply from purely environmental happenstances. Generally speaking, puberty, or reproductive sexual maturity begins around the age of twelve and continues for as many as 4 or 5 years on average. Sexual orientation is especially subject to environmental happenstances during this period. Civil Rights, from birth to the grave, NEVER legally change.

Simply put, the homosexuals' word magic might work in the public school curriculum, might be good fodder for tv or hollyweird, and even be demonstrated through the mass media outlets; however, when homosexuals have the effectiveness of their word magic undermined by way of more fathers and mothers (and especially mothers! :cool:) understanding the endgame of the homosexual agenda, then the desire of the homosexuals stated in their manifesto as, "...The family unit spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated..." will be countered at every turn.

"Society" will not stop the militant's homosexuals' agenda, but families, if given the knowledge of what is really going on, will be able to not only stop the homosexuals' intentions for their children, but they will also be able to start taking back what has been lost due to their previous ignorance of just how callous, selfish, and insidious the militant homosexuals' actually are about their chosen sexual orientation.

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 06:42
The statement worthy of Sarah ;)...
You totally lost me with this comment...:dunno:
... They exposed what exactly ? The concept ? As in, you seem to imply that it's a choice ? People are being born homosexual.
...
It's been proven, IIRC over a decade ago, people are not born homosexual. This whole concept was both a ploy and stratagem from the homosexuals so as to be able to claim Civil Rights for homosexuals.
...
Heck, penguins are being born homosexual - ask Google if you don't believe me. ...
Wow... just wow. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right, you're gonna based your sexual orientation on how a single penguin is acting in captivity?

BTW- Studies have been done that controvert your claim about penguins. HINT: It has always taken two penguins to raise a baby penguin. The male and female share the roles that are typically, in generalization, ascribed to human parents as the male being the bread winner and female being the homemaker.

If penguins followed our model (e.g, human beings), they would die out in one or two generations.

Even so, all persons being equal under the Constitution, if you want to base your sexual orientation on a penguin's actions, you have every right to do it for yourself, but do not try to convince children of such a foolish notion.
... Just like Albinos.
You either been lied to about the truth, and are repeating what you've been told, or you are lying about the truth.

Albinos are genetically derived. All albinos have come from a man and woman, or male and female. Please show even a SINGLE instance of an Albino offspring coming from two males and or two females...

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 06:47
... Expect a bunch of Marines to act like professionals in combat or on the drill field and they will impress you. Expect a bunch of Marines to act like professionals all the time and you will be sorely disappointed.
Good summary.

Eleanor Roosevelt summed it nicely as well, "The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!"

Lampshade
08-13-2012, 07:08
You're playing the "word magic" game now, which is typical of what some people to do when it comes to the homosexual's agenda for this country's children. Lampshade, I don't play word magic.

Sexual activity and sexual orientation are two different things.

Pointing this out is no more playing "word magic" than correcting somebody who describes a semi auto AR-15 as a "machine gun."

Lampshade
08-13-2012, 07:18
Simply put, the homosexuals' word magic might work in the public school curriculum, might be good fodder for tv or hollyweird, and even be demonstrated through the mass media outlets; however, when homosexuals have the effectiveness of their word magic undermined by way of more fathers and mothers (and especially mothers! :cool:) understanding the endgame of the homosexual agenda, then the desire of the homosexuals stated in their manifesto as, "...The family unit spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated..." will be countered at every turn.

Ah yes, the "homosexual manifesto."

Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a crazy person.

Carry on.

gwalchmai
08-13-2012, 07:23
The USSR commonly declared dissidents to be mentally ill...

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 07:28
Ah yes, the "homosexual manifesto."

Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a crazy person.

Carry on.
Hmmm.... so you are one that claims it is satire?

glockaviator
08-13-2012, 07:59
Just goes to show you, there are WRITTEN rules and UNWRITTEN rules. And the unwritten rules frequently take precedence over the written rules. The lesson to be learned is, if you want to get ahead in an organization, learn to tell the difference.

kensb2
08-13-2012, 08:09
Biblical Sharia.






I have another confession to make to the GlockTalk inquisition- I kept my poncho liner and I never signed a DD 362.

:embarassed:

(No way was I giving up my woobie!)

I hope they don't change the status of my discharge!

Nah, they'd just take the $75 it was probably worth out of your next tax return :tongueout:

ChuteTheMall
08-13-2012, 08:27
...the endgame of the homosexual ....

:pjmn:______________:eric:

"...heh heh...he said endgame ...heh heh[/beavis]

:aodnsb:____________:moonie:

"that word....they do not think it means what we think it means....[/inigo]

:duel:

dereklord
08-13-2012, 08:27
This guy lied about his service eligibility too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-05-lucas-obit_N.htm

Do you think we should strip him of the honor, you know... because he lied on the application?

Well, the dude did some great stuff. Taking NOTHNG away from that...he still lied. What if the article read...

"Known child molester and murderer [insert name here] was coming home from a killing spree/drug deal when he saw an abandoned building filled with puppies and bunnies burning to the ground. [name] ran into the burning building and saved said puppies and bunnies from certain destruction and was badly burned and scarred for his heroic actions. Due to the honorable way he saved the puppies and bunnies, we as a society are chosing to allow him to walk free. Thank you for your selfless heroism, [name], and please don't let anyone judge you for any of those other issues that we are already starting to forget about as we read this article."

Would we think differently? I understand that it seems trite maybe, to equate a lie to child molestation or murder, however, exactly where is the line drawn in the sand when it comes to right and wrong?

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 08:30
This thread has been eye opening because it shows that very few things can overcome the Hate inside of some peoples clouded, simple minds.

A lengthy career of service to Nation?

Don't matter if you is a faaaaaaaeg!

In the end, I believe these bed pissers will turn on everyone in their lives for not being exactly like them. You can smell the Fear in every word they post.

Nah, they'd just take the $75 it was probably worth out of your next tax return :tongueout:

I forgot to mention that I'm a master of AR 735-5... as well as property UN-accountability!
:supergrin:

dereklord
08-13-2012, 08:30
If it came down to him getting stripped I say, he created his own problems by lying.

People are canned/stripped of awards for honor violations, but if they can get away with whatever they do, fine, I guess.

That's the whole issue with this thread - Lying.

Should a sitting president be impeached for lying under oath?

Bingo. I havent read all of the responses to this, but MANY sports stars have had their accolades stripped for lying. Not only did they get the award taken away, they were shamed publicly and shunned throughout the sports world.

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 08:33
Would we think differently? I understand that it seems trite maybe, to equate a lie to child molestation or murder, however, exactly where is the line drawn in the sand when it comes to right and wrong?

This is where brain power counts... USE YOUR BRAIN to determine the difference between serial murder and child molestation and keeping your sexual business to yourself...


I thought the Air Force was supposed to be smarter?

:upeyes:

dereklord
08-13-2012, 08:35
This thread has been eye opening because it shows that very few things can overcome the Hate inside of some peoples clouded, simple minds.

A lengthy career of service to Nation?

Don't matter if you is a faaaaaaaeg!

In the end, I believe these bed pissers will turn on everyone in their lives for not being exactly like them. You can smell the Fear in every word they post.



I forgot to mention that I'm a master of AR 735-5... as well as property UN-accountability!
:supergrin:

I may wet the bed, but...

I am a realist. I have nothing against anyone for things that they cannont control. However, being a realist, I have to say that I have issues with people if they were to CHOOSE to do something wrong. This lady can do and be whatever she wants. Heck, she could move on to Columbia and get involved in the international drug trade for all that matters. But, if she lied, she should be able to accept the consequenses. If she gets caught while in Columbia producing/packaging/transporting 200 kilo's of boogar sugar, she should be able to accept the consequenses. Either way, she might be a fine American and a nice person.

dereklord
08-13-2012, 08:39
This is where brain power counts... USE YOUR BRAIN to determine the difference between serial murder and child molestation and keeping your sexual business to yourself...


I thought the Air Force was supposed to be smarter?

:upeyes:

Im not sure who lied to you about us Air Force guys but...

I was simply asking your opinion on the proverbial "line in the sand" when it came to right and wrong. I think that in my apparently inadequate brain I see the difference between serial murder, child molestation and keeping a secret. But keeping a secret isn't the issue discussed here. I thought it was lying. maybe I should go re-read the previous posts.

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 08:41
I may wet the bed, but...

I am a realist. I have nothing against anyone for things that they cannont control. However, being a realist, I have to say that I have issues with people if they were to CHOOSE to do something wrong. This lady can do and be whatever she wants. Heck, she could move on to Columbia and get involved in the international drug trade for all that matters. But, if she lied, she should be able to accept the consequenses. If she gets caught while in Columbia producing/packaging/transporting 200 kilo's of boogar sugar, she should be able to accept the consequenses. Either way, she might be a fine American and a nice person.

Now that's a better analogy, she should have known that her sexuality barred her from the possibility of service to Nation.

The fact that she kept her sexual business to herself, chose to sign the dotted line, raise her right hand and risk it all... despite all of this...

now that's much more similar to producing/packaging/transporting 200 kilos of cocaine than serial murder or child molestation.

:rofl:

Dude... go see a shrink!

magic
08-13-2012, 08:45
The question still remains if there was actually a written question "Are you gay?" on the application that she signed. Or if it was the verbal question as mentioned before, was she under oath? Finally, regardless of her promotions, what is the army punishment for lying on your application? I suppose it depends on the lie, but there has to be a minimum punishment of some sort. Does the lying on the application strip you of your position and awards? There must be some case history of something similar.

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 08:51
The question still remains if there was actually a written question "Are you gay?" on the application that she signed.

I took no Sex Oath in 1998, but that was after DADT ('93).

Finally, regardless of her promotions, what is the army punishment for lying on your application?

Article 83 Fraudulent Enlistment or Appointment.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm83.htm

magic
08-13-2012, 08:57
I took no Sex Oath in 1998, but that was after DADT ('93).



Article 83 Fraudulent Enlistment or Appointment.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm83.htm

So, it says punishment is basically whatever a court martial decides. Could be that they don't even bother with the gay issue, who knows?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

kensb2
08-13-2012, 08:57
It's hard to say how deserving she is of this promotion, without seeing her service record. I'd have to guess that it's pretty damned good. That being said, whether or not you agree(d) with the policies/UCMJ rules governing homosexuality in the military, they were still in place. They still had to be followed. I think people would view this differently if the only info out there was "Army promotes first flag officer that openly admits to lying on their enlistment/commision paperwork". If (big IF) she lied to get into the military, then she fraudulently enlisted and COULD be court martialed and kicked out. What I would want to see, at a minimum, is her receiving a letter of reprimand that would help bar her from further promotion, and a 1 grade reduction in rank. No, I don't care that she's gay, in case anyone is wondering. There are probably a great many things in the Army that people would view as "unfair". But you choose to join the Army.

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 08:58
The UCMJ considers oral sex to be a form of sodomy.

How many active duty military personnel have engaged in oral sex?

kensb2
08-13-2012, 09:01
The UCMJ considers oral sex to be a form of sodomy.

How many active duty military personnel have engaged in oral sex?

Pobably a lot. And that would be one of those cases that doesn't seem "fair". It also states that the missionary position is the only acceptable sexual position. However, if someone were to get pictures of my wife performing oral sex on me, then I could be punished under the UCMJ. Realistically, would I be? Probably not. But could I be? Definitely.

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 09:05
Pobably a lot. And that would be one of those cases that doesn't seem "fair". It also states that the missionary position is the only acceptable sexual position. However, if someone were to get pictures of my wife performing oral sex on me, then I could be punished under the UCMJ. Realistically, would I be? Probably not. But could I be? Definitely.

You know it was against the UCMJ then why did you purposely violate the code?

Can I question your service and integrity now?

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 09:07
I think some of you guys should write Lieutenant General Dana Kyle Chipman, the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army, and see if he wants to prosecute this.

Here are your POCs:

http://www.dodig.mil/HOTLINE/Filing%20Info%20Popup%20Windows/legal_services_popup.htm

magic
08-13-2012, 09:13
The UCMJ considers oral sex to be a form of sodomy.


It also states that the missionary position is the only acceptable sexual position.

What a bunch of party poopers.

kensb2
08-13-2012, 09:14
You know it was against the UCMJ then why did you purposely violate the code?

Can I question your service and integrity now?

You can if you'd like. However, I never said that it happened. I said if it happened. I guess you just glossed over the word when I read the statement.

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 09:16
It also states that the missionary position is the only acceptable sexual position.

That's not what it says.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

I wasn't sure if "natural carnal copulation" could be construed to mean doggy style, because it is more natural... and always wondered if reverse cowgirl in the back of the FLA, in between the litter racks, was in violation of Article 125.

Then I discovered that the true definition is:

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

kensb2
08-13-2012, 09:16
I think some of you guys should write Lieutenant General Dana Kyle Chipman, the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army, and see if he wants to prosecute this.

Here are your POCs:

http://www.dodig.mil/HOTLINE/Filing%20Info%20Popup%20Windows/legal_services_popup.htm

For him to do that would be career suicide. There is no way that this promotion isn't at least a little bit politically motivated. And not from the standpoint of the current Administration. More from the military machine saying that now that we've gotten rid of DADT, they have to show all the troops that it wasn't just lip service.

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 09:17
What a bunch of party poopers.

But that's The Law!!!

magic
08-13-2012, 09:17
This is old news....but.....

http://www.stripes.com/news/panel-urges-ending-ucmj-s-sodomy-ban-1.95937

Says most cases are not prosecuted.

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 09:18
For him to do that would be career suicide. There is no way that this promotion isn't at least a little bit politically motivated. And not from the standpoint of the current Administration. More from the military machine saying that now that we've gotten rid of DADT, they have to show all the troops that it wasn't just lip service.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Generals and admirals who aren't white were also promoted because of politics too, and not because of their achievements either.

kensb2
08-13-2012, 09:22
I thought I had read that in the UCMJ personally, but if not then I stand corrected (on the position statement).
And the reverse cowgirl in the back of the FLA would probably violate more than 1 article of the UCMJ, even if you had commited such an act with your wife. That being said, I probably (as your NCO) would've just told you not to do it again.

kensb2
08-13-2012, 09:28
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Generals and admirals who aren't white were also promoted because of politics too, and not because of their achievements either.

That wasn't what I said, but ok. I'd say it's pretty naive to think that her promotion had absolutely nothing to do with her being 'openly' gay. Like I said earlier, her service record is probably damned good, and she was qualified to be considered for the appointment. But if I'm sitting on the JCS, and the last 2 packets that come across my desk are equal, and 1 is a white male, the other is her...chances are she gets the promotion recommendation. Why? Because the military was intolerant of black people, and women, and gays for so long. How do you change that perception? By doing things that are highly visible to both the troops, and general public.

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 09:34
For him to do that would be career suicide.

More from the military machine saying that now that we've gotten rid of DADT, they have to show all the troops that it wasn't just lip service.

Career Suicide?

Certainly not.

It's not a completely baseless accusation like that birther kook.

Maybe her assigned soldiers should refuse her orders?

OR maybe we should fight WITH the team instead of against it!

:salute:

That being said, I probably (as your NCO) would've just told you not to do it again.

I probably (as an officer) would have said, "Don't playa hate... congratulate, sar'nt!"

:supergrin:

http://www.combatindex.com/store/3D/Sample/m997_rear_02.jpg

Ummagumma
08-13-2012, 09:37
So it appears that every service member that ever had a BJ is a lier since they violated the same rule as she did ?

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 09:40
So it appears that every service member that ever had a BJ is a lier since they violated the same rule as she did ?

That's basically it... but come on, don't think about it too much, just get your HATE ON!

:wavey:

GlockPistola
08-13-2012, 09:49
I always wondered why some people are so threatened by gays serving in the military. Maybe it's the thought of having thousands of well trained gay men and women with fully automatic weapons walking around asking: "Who did you call a fag?"

kensb2
08-13-2012, 09:53
They didn't violate the same rules, IF she lied and fraudulently enlisted. And I would pose this question. Say next year, the gov't and military decide to make marijauna use legal. Does every soldier that pissed hot for it and lost rank get it all back, plus backpay, plus an extra promotion because that offense probably inhibited their career?
Again, I'm not against her having been promoted, she probably deserved it. And again, I don't personally care that she's gay, either.

gwalchmai
08-13-2012, 10:12
The UCMJ considers oral sex to be a form of sodomy.Could you post a link to cite that, please? I don't recall that ever being mentioned when I was in. Of course, oral sex may not have been invented back then...

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 10:16
So it appears that every service member that ever had a BJ is a lier since they violated the same rule as she did ?

UCMJ code violation is UCMJ code violation. The violater knew about the code yet purposely flaunted it. I therefore question every military man and woman's ethics and integrity for doing so.

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 10:17
Could you post a link to cite that, please?

http://bit.ly/QXcTH3

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 10:18
That wasn't what I said, but ok. I'd say it's pretty naive to think that her promotion had absolutely nothing to do with her being 'openly' gay.

Why? Because you have insider's information that I don't? Were you sitting on her promotion board?

Like I said earlier, her service record is probably damned good, and she was qualified to be considered for the appointment. But if I'm sitting on the JCS, and the last 2 packets that come across my desk are equal, and 1 is a white male, the other is her...chances are she gets the promotion recommendation. Why? Because the military was intolerant of black people, and women, and gays for so long. How do you change that perception? By doing things that are highly visible to both the troops, and general public.

That may be YOU, but not necessarily everybody else.

kensb2
08-13-2012, 10:18
Could you post a link to cite that, please? I don't recall that ever being mentioned when I was in. Of course, oral sex may not have been invented back then...

Google MCM 2012, it's in there.....

kensb2
08-13-2012, 10:22
Military promotions are political at the lowest level. Is it so unbelievable that it would be so at the highest levels? Have you ever had any say on a soldiers promotion in the military before? I think this thread is getting away from the point now, though. If she lied to get in, then she lied to get in. The UCMJ says what the appropriate punishment is. And I'm pretty sure that the punishment for ALL 134 articles aren't the same.

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 10:23
Could you post a link to cite that, please? I don't recall that ever being mentioned when I was in. Of course, oral sex may not have been invented back then...

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 125. SODOMY


(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

ChuteTheMall
08-13-2012, 10:30
Define unnatural carnal copulation:whistling:

napp32
08-13-2012, 10:36
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Generals and admirals who aren't white were also promoted because of politics too, and not because of their achievements either.

Sadly, that was (is?) true in some cases. When Affirmative Action was first instituted, the services jumped through the hoops in an effort to level the playing field as quickly as possible. There was a period when the field was over-tilted beyond level; and things were more "affirmative" than they should have been.

It's just a fact of life that military promotions at the upper echelons have always been influenced, to a degree, by politics. It's equally true that non-whites being considered for higher ranks in the early days of Affirmative Action reaped the benefits of "being in the right place at the right time."

I've been retired too long to know if the same situation still exists; but I suspect it is less of an issue now than it was during the seventies.

KalashniKEV
08-13-2012, 10:55
Define unnatural carnal copulation:whistling:

Post #212 and first reference in my above link.

OctoberRust
08-13-2012, 12:11
Looks like the homo bashers lost this thread.


Sorry Chute, Maybe if you look up to someone with a little more intellectual capacity than who is in your avatar, you might have better luck next time. :rofl:

gwalchmai
08-13-2012, 12:16
"homo bashers"? Insults are the last refuge of someone losing an argument, Rust.

Or am I crazy?

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 12:20
:pjmn:______________:eric:

"...heh heh...he said endgame ...heh heh[/beavis]

:aodnsb:____________:moonie:

"that word....they do not think it means what we think it means....[/inigo]

:duel:

I bet you giggle when an announcer mentions the tight-ends during football games too. :tongueout:

OctoberRust
08-13-2012, 12:23
"homo bashers"? Insults are the last refuge of someone losing an argument, Rust.

Or am I crazy?


The argument has long been over, ever since kalishnakev and FN fal man ended it with citations and facts.


Sorry your team lost, take it like a man, and maybe even throw in an apology. If you're confused on any of this, refer back to the last few pages.


ETA - if you want the rules to be the "rules" then we should can 90%+ of the military for giving or receiving oral.

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 12:24
... You can smell the Fear in every word they post. ...
Ugh..... I don't think anyone is scared of homosexuals.

I think it has been made plain the topic is about lying so as to secure a commission/promotion. (Personally, I hold Officers to a higher standard than Enlisted personnel.)

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 12:31
The argument has long been over, ever since kalishnakev and FN fal man ended it with citations and facts.


Sorry your team lost, take it like a man, and maybe even throw in an apology. If you're confused on any of this, refer back to the last few pages.


ETA - if you want the rules to be the "rules" then we should can 90%+ of the military for giving or receiving oral.

Not so fast, we are still waiting on the unnatural carnal copulation definition.

OctoberRust
08-13-2012, 12:36
Not so fast, we are still waiting on the unnatural carnal copulation definition.


UCMJ article 125 leaves it open for interpretation it seems. So basically almost everyone in the military is guilty to begin with, and subject to punishment whenever they see fit.

Anyways, it's all or nothing gay bashers. Come on. :rofl:

gwalchmai
08-13-2012, 12:42
The argument has long been over, ever since kalishnakev and FN fal man ended it with citations and facts.


Sorry your team lost, take it like a man, and maybe even throw in an apology. If you're confused on any of this, refer back to the last few pages.


ETA - if you want the rules to be the "rules" then we should can 90%+ of the military for giving or receiving oral.Well, no, not really. The real truth is that PC promotions and Affirmative Action always result in lowered standards and a weaker military. Many of us see that and are saddened by it.

So yeah, my team lost.

Peace Warrior
08-13-2012, 12:51
UCMJ article 125 leaves it open for interpretation it seems. So basically almost everyone in the military is guilty to begin with, and subject to punishment whenever they see fit.

Anyways, it's all or nothing gay bashers. Come on. :rofl:

gay bashers? Ummmm... yeah. :whistling:


I don't bash homosexuals, and as I mentioned before, if a heterosexual woman lied in order to receive a commission, would that be okay with you?

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 13:00
I don't bash homosexuals, and as I mentioned before, if a heterosexual woman lied in order to receive a commission, would that be okay with you?


Officers and enlisted lie all the times, some lies are big and some lies are small. However, all the lies violate the UCMJ codes and code of conducts. So...now what?

nmk
08-13-2012, 13:03
The argument has long been over, ever since kalishnakev and FN fal man ended it with citations and facts.


Sorry your team lost, take it like a man, and maybe even throw in an apology. If you're confused on any of this, refer back to the last few pages.


ETA - if you want the rules to be the "rules" then we should can 90%+ of the military for giving or receiving oral.

Only 90%? I think you're being pretty conservative with that figure. Maybe someone will come along to tell us how natural it is...

:supergrin:

ETA: Sorry, I missed the +.

John Rambo
08-13-2012, 13:17
“I don’t think I need to be focused on that," Stripes quoted Smith as saying. "What is relevant is upholding Army values and the responsibility this carries.”

Thats why shes a General and you're all keyboard kommandos.

Glock13
08-13-2012, 13:18
NO. The answer is pretty obvious - the medal of honor is given for specific acts and has nothing to do with the soldier's career, before or after.

Promotion, on the other hand, is based on the whole career. If this general had 20 years in and joined during Don't Ask Don't Tell, that would be perfectly legitimate. I'd suspect the promotion, or the surrounding publicity, was political and was being used to motivate a particular voting base at this particular time (a group that is small but has a lot of influence in the media) but there wouldn't be the same question.

In this case, the Army has chosen to promote an officer to general who has made it clear that she has lied to the Army, her superiors, subordinates, etc., throughout her careeer.



Maybe and maybe not - it probably isn't in her military records that the senate reviews. I don't know how much outside investigation is done. Prior to this administration, any actual mention in her records that she was a lesbian would have been cause to throw her out of the Army.

That is a nice way to twist it. However, if the MOH recipient was honest, he may never have been able to join in the first place. Like you said, this is all about lying.

ChuteTheMall
08-13-2012, 13:30
Not so fast, we are still waiting on the unnatural carnal copulation definition.

If it's genetically determined, how can it be unnatural?:headscratch:

OctoberRust
08-13-2012, 13:32
Only 90%? I think you're being pretty conservative with that figure. Maybe someone will come along to tell us how natural it is...

:supergrin:

ETA: Sorry, I missed the +.


Well, the other 10% are lying. :supergrin:

I just left that tid-bit of information out.

OctoberRust
08-13-2012, 13:33
Well, no, not really. The real truth is that PC promotions and Affirmative Action always result in lowered standards and a weaker military. Many of us see that and are saddened by it.

So yeah, my team lost.


Affirmative action? :rofl:


Wow, you should look up that definition.

Yea, I'm saddened by affirmative action too, two wrongs don't make a right.

Lampshade
08-13-2012, 14:05
I don't bash homosexuals...

You just make reference to their supposed desire to destroy the institution of the family and point to, as evidence, a supposed 'homosexual manifesto.'

:rofl: